Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1158

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Can that infernal homepage that's been forced upon us be turned off? I can't stand it. WhoAmIYouDoNotKnow (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@WhoAmIYouDoNotKnow Welcome to the Teahouse! If you don't like the Main Page of Wikipedia, just don't visit it. You may want to start at Special:Watchlist or Special:Search instead. If you have constructive feedback on how to make the Main Page better, you can post it at Talk:Main Page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@WhoAmIYouDoNotKnow Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal and turn off the option for the "Newcomer homepage". It should be somewhere near the bottom. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:GoingBatty I wasn't talking about the mainpage, I wrote "homepage", there's a vast difference. WhoAmIYouDoNotKnow (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@WhoAmIYouDoNotKnow: Home page says: "A home page (or homepage) is the main web page of a website". That's also the usual meaning in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Homepage redirects to Main Page. "Newcomer homepage" is a recent feature for new users. Most established users haven't seen it or heard of it. The posting intructions for this page say "Provide a link to the page you're asking about." PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:192.76.8.85 Thanks! WhoAmIYouDoNotKnow (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Nilpawan Baruah Which part or link to be omitted and which type of links should be added to show notability in this article? Actually the person is notable . As I'm a newcomer in enwiki , so I'm facing difficulty in providing the notability or to add suitable references

One more questions, can I add references of regional language suppose, a reference of Assamese language? Baruahranuj 14:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The question is not whether you believe that he is notable, but whether you provide the references required to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. For that, you need several sources each of which meets all three of the following conditions:

1. It is a reliable source.
2. It is independent of him: not written or published by him or his associates or institutions, and not based on an interview or press release
3. It contains significant coverage of him.

Looking at the first three citations in your draft, the first is from Times of India: there is no consensus as to whether this is regarded as a reliable source; but in any case, it is mostly based on an interview, and so it not independent. The second is published by the Government of India so it may be reliable (though, according to the URL it is a blog, and they are not normally regarded as reliable). In any case, it does not contain significant coverage of Baruah. It might be a useful source for the information in it, but it does not contribute to notability.

The third merely mentions his name, so does not contribute to notability.

It is possible that the later references do establish notability - I haven't looked past the first three. But Theroadislong evidently did not think so.

In answer to your last question: yes, sources in Assamese are perfectly acceptable, if there are not adequate sources available in English. As a practical matter, it may take longer for a draft that uses non-English sources to get reviewed, because reviewers are volunteers, and choose which drafts they review. But non-English sources are acceptable, as long as they meet the criteria above. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am investigating whether Alex Donahue should be nominated for deletion. The article's draft was previously declined for publication as shown in this Curator84 talk page in a message from 2021. I also saw in another user talk page that the article had been proposed for deletion (and deleted) back in 2008, although I can't find again where that message was. My question is, how can I find the archived discussions of the 2008 deletion, and the 2021 draft review? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Al83tito, View History then view logs at the top of page will lead to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Alex+Donahue

No discussion back in '08, looks to have been repeatedly spam created. Slywriter (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Slywriter. This log is very helpful, and it addresses my 2018 deletion question. If anyone knows how to find the 2021 draft article review logs, I am still interested in that. Al83tito (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Just add draft: like so. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Alex+Donahue

Slywriter (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I'd like to better understand the steps to stop an IP from editing a page. An IP user has been editing the same page and removing references every time without any justification. The user had an initial warning on their talk page, but I'm just not sure of the steps to request a block and that process. As an aside, some, but not all, of these edits are being blocked by an edit filter, which is confusing to me since it doesn't appear consistent. The user's contributions and the page, Barbara Osborn Kreamer. Engineerchange (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Engineerchange: You can request that the article be protected from editing by IPs at WP:RPP. Use the same evidence as you posted here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks Mike! --Engineerchange (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Engineerchange. I have indefinitely blocked that IP address from editing that specific article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I just happened to scroll past this discussion and got interested. Although I'm in no need of blocking anyone at the moment — and hopefully ever — I'm curious what would happen if the blocked editor has good reason to think that the editor who blocked him/her was the bad guy instead.

No implicit incriminations here, Engineerchange! Augnablik (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik, they can request an unblock and an uninvolved admin will review it and determine whether the block was justified. If the blocking admin's judgment seems questionable, they can be brought up at WP:ANI like any other editor. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Augnablik (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This came up when I tried to publish some recent changes in an article I'm editing:

Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 404)

I tried to publish several more times after the message first came up, but the same thing kept happening.

Does this mean whatever I've done is going to be lost? Augnablik (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik This is a known and frequently recurring bug in the visual editor, see Phab:T266971 for a list of some of the reports of this occurring. It can be triggered for all kinds of reasons, e.g. leaving a page open too long or issues with the servers. You should still be able to edit the pages using the source editor. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, @Augnablik, while I am by no means an technical expert, from experience, refreshing you browser's cache seems to sometimes work for me (but take this with a grain a huge pile of salt) . If you don't want to lose your edits in the meantime, copy your edits into a separate text window like a word document or a notepad app. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

HenryTempo, I'm already copying my edits into a separate place ... I guess I didn't make too many new ones that I might lose, so even if refreshing my browser's cache despite all the salt doesn't work — or as 192.76.8.85 suggested, trying the source editor — maybe it wouldn't be a major loss. Augnablik (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Let's hope the tekkies get this figured out soon. I did leave the page open a long time, so that's probably why it happened. I'll try the source editor, as you suggested, though I find it sort of a scary place. ;) Augnablik (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello I have created a graphic for the article on CMAMMA. Unfortunately, the texts in the media viewer overlap in some places. If you exit it by clicking again, it displays perfectly. I already tried it as regular svg file and as responsive svg file without success. Is it because of the dimensions? Does anyone have any advice? Thanks. Abvdj (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. OK, so the Media Viewer is broken, I wouldn't worry about that. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to provide slide shows. Maproom (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

UCLA yearbooks 2601:643:8005:3C0:C50:76BA:A65A:7544 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If you can specify the yearbook and (perhaps via a Worldcat reference) specify some libraries that possess it, you're welcome to point this out at Talk:Boris Karloff. But somebody's memory of something that was in some yearbook is not going to be sufficient. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Verification is easily available onlone, including at least two websites that show the yearbook page. This book confirms it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If you click on the link in footnote 7, you'll see that the "J :" needs to be removed, because there is no "J" nor colon in the actual article headline; rather, they are in the column at the left with the misspelled first name. I am unable to remove them because, when I go to Edit source, they are hidden in < ref name=":3"/ >, and I don't know how those ref names are created. I hope that it's ok to post this in the Teahouse. I do so because, when I post something on an article's talk page, I rarely get a response, but responses on Teahouse are always prompt. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If, in addition to fixing footnote 7, anyone wants to take a look at footnotes 1 and 2, please do. You'll see for yourself what the problems are. Compare them with footnote 5.Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus I've fixed it for you! To do that, I simply clicked the 'Edit source' tab (rather than the 'Edit' tab and looked at the bare text used to create the article. I used Ctrl-F to find a keyword in the reference. I chose 'Dies'. That took me to where the code for the actual reference lies within the article itself (although the viewer sees the reference at the bottom of the page. I deleted the 'J' and saved it. Problem solved. You could also have fixed it yourself using the Visual Editor. To do that is just as easy. But don't try to edit the reference at the bottom of the page. Just find the number (in this case 7) and click that reference number in square brackets at the end of the cited statement in the article. A pop-up window appears and you can then edit the reference and fix any mistakes. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus I've also now merged the two faulty references into the one viable one. I did that entirely in Visual Editor by opening it with the Edit tab. I first checked the three references (initially allocated nos [1], [2] and [5]). But these are allocated dynamically, so if you move the references around, their order will actually change when displayed at the bottom of the page. This is important to note, and the reason why I started editing from the bottom of the page. Working upwards, whenever I encountered a [1] or a [2], I highlighted and deleted it. I then went to the Cite tab, clicked 'Re-Use' and selected the one functioning reference by Helen Epstein (here) to put in their place. I worked upwards, replacing all of them. By the time I'd done, I noted that the removal of the last faulty citations removed them completely from the lower footnotes section, leaving all citations pointing to just that one working reference. Lest someone else tried to work on it whilst I was editing, I first placed an {{in use}} template on the article, which I deleted right afterwards. Hope this helps, and that you'll feel confident doing it yourself next time.

Personally, I find that allocating a reusable 'ref name' to a citation is really helpful, rather than just having a number. Doing that in WP:VE is not possible, so, whilst editing or creating a new article, I simply switch modes to WP:Source Editor and insert my better reference there, ensuring I include a helpful but short RefName in the lower left hand box in the citation popup window. It's then easy to find and reuse the reference just by calling up that name. Guidance on that is given in WP:REFNAME, should you want to learn more. You can then switch back to WP:VE if you prefer the more visual approach to everything else. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thanks for all your work. Footnote 2 goes to a webpage that says it's "temporarily" unavailable. I'm skeptical, but we'll see. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus No problem - we're here to help and assist editors to learn. (I've learned tons here myself!). Are you aware of a thing called the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive? It's a great way to find and rescue now-dead links, and a very good reason never to delete an old non-functioning citation, but to mark it, instead with a {{dead link}} template. However, in your case, reference 2 can be retrieved in a functioning form!

Go first to https://archive.org/web/, then type in the non-functioning url (http://www.casastefanzweig.org/agenda_en/s33.html) into the search box. If, as here, it has been archived, you get options as to which version to check. In this case there are two dates available, and this one seems to works fine: https://web.archive.org/web/20190510100833/http://www.casastefanzweig.org/agenda_en/s33.html

So now, go back to open the page. Let's use WP:VE, as you seem to prefer it. In Visual editor, find the citation allocated [2] within the reference list. Click it and click 'Edit'. Scroll down the list of fields and type in the webarchive url into the field labelled 'Archive URL'. Save the edit and your reference should not only now work, but the old url will be marked as dead (so don't remove it please). Again, I hopes this helps and that you'll feel confident fixing things like this in future. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

And for the record, not only do we accept cites to archived websites, we generally prefer archived citations - they're much less likely to suffer from this exact issue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thanks again. Despite the clarity of your explanation, this is over my head. Would you please fix n.2?Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus No worries. I forget to say that you also need to add the date of the archive (which is displayed on the archived website, and in the url). I fixed for you with this diff. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Could someone tell me how to find out how many incoming wikilinks an article has? I presume there must be a better way than going to "what links here" and counting them. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Most pages don't have huge numbers of links to them, so it's easy to get the displayed number (shown at top of page) But if you go to Earth and click 'What links here' you get thousands, so it's hard to count. But notice the 'External tools' links above the displayed list of names. Click 'Link count' and you get this answer of 23,747. Hope that is what you needed. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

oops, forgot to ping @Asilvering. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, perfect. Don't know how I managed to miss a link right on the page I was looking at. Thanks @Nick Moyes. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems people are often excoriated here for calling Wikipedia articles "pages", but when I receive e-mail notices about watched articles, the message in my in-box is always "Wikipedia page X has been changed...". Strange. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

if people who deliver messages can continue to be called pages then I am certain that what we call paper with information on it will continue to be called pages and when only screens exist it will be a distinction that you can tell from when a person dates or their line of reference exists. Trained as an archivist and historian there are many words or terms that have changed yet we all can still get upset over them. There are some things that were done manually in days past that they do not do in third world nations.2603:8000:D300:D0F:B47F:8C30:9EA5:CF42 (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think posters are only "excoriated" for saying "profile" or "my page". Those terms hint that the poster has a misunderstanding about the nature of Wikipedia articles. The terms are often used by posters who make demands that Wikipedia doesn't want to meet. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: The email uses a term for pages in all namespaces: Articles, talk pages, user pages, and so on. I don't think it could currently be customized for articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You'd think they'd select a default phrase that reflects the majority of uses. I bet there are more changes to articles in a given day than all the bona fide pages combined. Why, if it were my Wikipedia, I'd...(whoops, can't say that). -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering why, my article was declined, and if so what can I do to make it published Jenzibringzi056 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jenzibringzi056: Your draft was rejected because Wikipedia has no interest in an encyclopedic article about a fan film you created. You should not attempt to republish it anywhere on Wikipedia. ––FormalDude talk 05:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jenzibringzi056. Your draft is about a future fan film that is glaringly non-notable. What you can do to get it published is to wait until it is covered in depth by the Los Angeles Times or Variety or the Hollywood Reporter or similar reliable entertainment industry sources. Until then, do not try to submit it. Unreferenced drafts have zero chance of being accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So sorry. I am rusty but there needs to be some work, corrections and updates. I am just very rusty at citing. (I thought this was easier awhile ago) So on the Bannister Merwin wikipedia page, I want to cite IMDb --https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0581683/?ref_=tt_ov_dr --after the number of films cited. And I keep getting an error. Apologies Chamuss (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chamuss: I am not able to infer what error you are getting, however, IMDB is not considered reliable , meaning it shouldn't be cited at all, and if there is no other source for a given piece of information, we can't include it. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's quite likely that you're getting an error because IMDb isn't allowed as a source. --VersaceSpace 🌃 21:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chamuss: IMDB can be validly used in the external links section of articles. There is a specific template, so that in the case you want to cite it would be {{imdb name|0581683|Bannister Merwin}} which renders as Bannister Merwin at IMDb. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

i will create the name and last name birthday Kay celis (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Kay celis, do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? (By the way, I suggest you read advice for younger editors). ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

 – Sections merged by Tenryuu.

plese help to create wikipedia my name and last name birthday place Kay celis (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, please see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK we only have articles on people who are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Christian villafuerte Wikipedia is not a place for people to create content about themselves, i.e., not social media. Articles about people exist only if they are so notable that other people write about them. That published material becomes references for the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I am seriously appalled at the way I have been attacked by 3 long time Wiki members since my attempt at draft submission this morning.

This has been QUITE the learning experience and I am SO unhappy! Not ONE person reached out to try and HELP me. All anyone wanted to do was focus on getting my submitted draft deleted that I worked so hard on & was feeling reasonably proud of. What makes it WORSE, is that not ONLY was the content of my post labeled inadequate, I was my motives and character were put on the chopping block as well. THESE PEOPLE DONT KNOW ME!;{ I read some of the Wiki guidelines which states: "Do not be hostile towards fellow editors, NEWCOMERS IN PARTICULAR. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner." That is FAR from what I have experienced this morning. Shame on them ALL - really. If this is what Wiki editing and contributing is about then I want no part of it. Its not worth the bad feelings I now have toward how I was treated today and the extremely complicated Wiki submission process.

Regarding the suggestion of a a possible COI - I read that part too. It says that editors should attempt to follow the accepted standard although commons sense and an OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION may apply. NO BODY waited for me to reply a position and instead, jumped on the "DELETE THE POST! OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!" bandwagon. My number one question is..... If you are not paid, or affiliated with an organization why would anyone EVERY waste their time to submit anything? So far it's been a lot of WORK for something a bunch of mean faceless people can delete without your consent. But I guess this is the age we live in now. CENSOR everyone and everything until its just how WE want it. PrivacyPenchant (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians take a particularly dim view of WP:PROMO material by a WP:COI or WP:PAID account. As volunteers, we are not here to help any business use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Best thing would be to come clean on your userpage about your association and work on your article in draft if you believe it can meet Wikipedia standards for a business being notable. If it can't meet those standards then no amount of editing will make the article notable. There are also 6 million plus articles that can use improvement. Slywriter (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

PrivacyPenchant There are two places to ask for help - here (Teahouse), and Help. You gotta ask. As to what happened, it appears that as User:AllClearDVC you created an article, then changed it to Draft:All Clear Dryer Vent Cleaning of Kansas City and it was Speedy deleted. Not being an Administrator, I cannot see the now-dead draft, but I am guessing it was deemed promotional with no redeeming factors, and is gone. There was also the question of you being paid or otherwise compensated or personally connected to ACDBC-KC. Being paid does not prevent you from creating a draft as long as the connection is stated on your User page. Try again. However, per Slywriter's comment, if the company does not meet WP:NCORP, no amount of writing will suffice. This is an encyclopedia, not social media. David notMD (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are not paid, or affiliated with an organization why would anyone EVERY (sic) waste their time to submit anything? — Because this is an encyclopedia built on volunteer time, many people do enjoy writing. And many editors don't appreciate solely-promotional users who don't know Wikipedia's COI rules wasting their time. On your user-page, you have the appearance of a user who hopes to be helpful, but conversely, your last username was the name of a business. Can you tell us what's going on here? --VersaceSpace 🌃 21:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PrivacyPenchant I'm really sorry you had a bad experience with your first few edits here. It may have seemed harsh to you that your article about a Kansas-based dry-cleaning company was speedily deleted, but this is an encyclopaedia of notable things, not a place for companies, staff or fans of products to promote their favourite product. The criteria for accepting an article about a business are very steep. These are laid out at HERE, and we do tend to assume someone being either brave or reckless enough to put such an article into mainspace has already spent the time to understand how things work here. It's a shame you were not able to do that before diving in at the deep end. Because Wikipedia is now both incredibly well-known and popular, as well as being entirely volunteer run, we do take a dim view of content which we deem as WP:PROMOTION, and it's unfortunate that sometimes we give those editors such as yourself 'short shrift'. But I se no rudeness or unpleasantness directed towards you on your talk page. Or did I miss something?

As an administrator here, I am able to view your deleted page, and it's pretty clear to me that in that form it failed our notability criteria and merited removal. I can't see where anyone dealt especially unfairly or rudely with you - there's lots of explanatory information left on your user talk page. Assuming good faith works in both directions. When we see content like yours, we assume you are using us to promote your business, and we may ask you to declare it, as it's incredibly unusual for someone to choose as their username the acronym of an obscure dry cleaning company before changing it to your current one and then immediately writing an article about it.

When we suspect undeclared paid editing (see WP:UPE) it's not unusual to find interactions from other volunteers somewhat more abrupt and forceful than if you've just arrived, had started to learn by making simple edits to lots of other article first, or had simply wanted to create an article about, say, a newly discovered insect and had simply made a hash of it. Had we seen someone struggling with the latter, I and many others would undoubtedly have reached out to assist you. But few of us want to help promote a small business and it's unfortunate that you took our interactions with you so personally. I'm sorry, about that. The deletion of your article was not censorship - it simply followed our clearly laid out policies in order to keep non-notable content well away from this encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PrivacyPenchant. Your indignation is based on a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a neutrally written encyclopedia with articles about notable topics. It is not a place for people to engage in any sort of self-promotinnal writing. We have standards and we stick to them. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and it should be clear to you that this dryer vent cleaning company does not qualify. Also, the Paid contributions disclosure is mandatory and non-negotiable. You askIf you are not paid, or affiliated with an organization why would anyone EVERY waste their time to submit anything? Take a look at my user page, where I list over one hundred articles that I have written, and many hundred that I have expanded. Not one of the articles I've written has ever been deleted. Many of those articles are about notable businesses and organizations. I do it because I enjoy contributing to the world's greatest encyclopedia which is free to everyone. People frequently thank me for the work I do here, because I comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. This was my first Wiki attempt and no, I did not understand all of the rules - esp given that there are so many! Pretty daunting I must say.... The original AllClearDVC name was used because that is what I planned on writing about- then I thought that I may decide to write something else so best to pick something generic. I am neither the owner, or being paid for the time I spent creating the draft. Admittedly, I struggled with understanding the submission process and requirements from the get-go. I am not stupid - but I dont grasp things well by reading paragraph after paragraph of instruction ad nauseum. I am definitely a rote learner. I read snippets here and there but didnt see many of the rules that I was accused of violating PRE VIOLATION! Must have MISSED that in the welcome video :/ Being as small business owner myself (of another company) I am ALWAYS pressed for time. This process was so challenging, without help from someone standing next to me, and then to be so ill received, was extremely disappointing. I was accused by one of "knowing more" than I was letting on and I ASSURE YOU this is NOT the case. Putting the article in mainspace was an accident (not brave or wreckless). I was just trying to figure out how to change the title since it was under my sandbox name. I figured out how to change it to a draft when I read the "immediate deletion tag" and I realized it was not a draft and I was trying to correct it. Over the past few hours I have read more on standards and I do see that the company would need to be cited (independently) more than just a few times (for notability reasons). Since you say you were able to view the delete submission I hope you see that I did not post a shamelessly plug for the company in my post. I tried to be very factual and neutral. And yes, I agree - self promotion is what social media is for. Thank you for taking time to address my post.PrivacyPenchant (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You wrote:being paid for the time I spent creating the draft. - that is quite specific, but Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines cover cases more broad than that. Can you please clarify if you have any association, professional or otherwise, with the company you were writing about, its owners or its employees? MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI - New editors who choose to create an article about an obscure company are always suspected to be on payroll or personal friend. General advice is gain experienec improving existing articles before essaying creation. And you are always welcome to ask for advice here. David notMD (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

PrivacyPenchant I'm sorry that you had such an upsetting experience when you submitted your first article. Researching and writing is hard work, and it hurts when your efforts are not wanted. Before I became aware of Wikipedia I'd done a little freelance writing for publishers (back when writers mailed printed documents), and had most of my manuscripts returned to me, for they were rejected by the publisher. When I began volunteering for Wikipedia I understood that all publishers have specific guidelines, and I spent three years improving published Wikipedia articles (correcting poorly written sentences, adding needed references, expanding articles with sourced information from reliable published articles and reference books) before I felt I knew enough about Wikipedia to submit my first article draft. I read Your first article multiple times to make sure I could write an acceptable article that was worthy (notable enough) to be part of an encyclopedia.

You wondered why anyone would write an article unless they were affiliated with the subject, or were being paid for their efforts. I do it in order to help those with similar interests to my own. In my U.S. state public libraries have had their government funding reduced, and college libraries no longer allow non-students to use their facilities because of safety concerns, so online research is how most people find information. I do the research and write well-referenced encyclopedia articles so that notable subjects that interest me will had a reliable article so others can easily learn about what they want to know. I consider it an honor and a privilege to be a Wikipedia volunteer editor. In a world filled with "fake news" I try to help by providing reliable un-biased information that may otherwise be unavailable.

I hope that you will find it worthwhile to continue being a part of the Wikipedia community. Best wishes on any further research projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

I have been writing a draft for Smarter Technologies and it has been declined 5 times.

The first drafts were declined for being too advertorial. When this type of content was removed, the feedback given was then that there was not enough content.

When attempting to expand on the article, it was once again declined for being advertorial.

I feel I'm stuck in a loop, where adding content is deemed advertorial, but when removing content, the remaining is not enough.

Perhaps the confusion may be stemming from the fact the business name is called Smarter Technologies, with some product names including the word "smarter" as part of the actual product name?

Please let me know any tips, advice and guidance you may have to get this page approved. Gsfintescu (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Smarter Technologies has zero independent reliable sources so has zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Gsfintescu, the loop is a strong indicator of a subject not being notable by wikipedia standards for corporations. No amount of editing can make a subject notable; significant, independent coverage in reliable sources either exists or it doesn't. Slywriter (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You have not replied to two requests about whether you are paid or otherwise compensated or have a personal connection to Smarter Technologies, even though this is the only article you have attempted to create. WP:PAID or WP:COI apply. In the draft, the descriptions are vague, the references useless (the company and it's divisions own websites, confirmation of getting a trademark). I strongly recommend that you put Db-author at the top inside of double curly brackets {{ }}. This will request an Administrator to delete the draft. If in time people not connected to the company publish articles about the company, someone not connected may decide to craft a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD:, well that was harsh — but thanks for bringing this up because I could've done way worse!! Have you seen my reply — I made it easy for him/her so he/she would not take offense to what is/are required here at WP. Harsh per WP:BITE and not forgetting the IAR rule. As much as this is an encyclopaedia and a project, I started out just like that and as time went by soon grew into the WP mindset. Maybe I could revamp that draft and try again so as not for it to get deleted?! If not, I just speedily delete this on his/her behalf!! I know how CSD works now!! Intrisit (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gsfintescu: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, known for short as or abbreviated WP. Some grammar and vocabulary of yours were off-key so I coorected them for you (No need to thank me!!). I've taken a read-through of your draft and it looks like you need simple clarification of the science and mechanics of WP, so here are 3 of them:

First and foremost, have you read the first 2 lines of the first decline statement? Wikipedia was first founded with the first and most important rule: the NPOV rule, initialised from neutral point of view. Your first 3 lines in your draft has no lead section, which is very important here on WP, along with the obvious fact that it exhales promotional air. In short, your topic about a company/brand needs to be re-written in tone that says, "I'm not interested, I'll just put it here on WP in a way that will excite me less!" In other words, describe what it is like — or simply Specify what the company is — Wikipedia smiles on these!!

Second, based on the guidelines here at WP for companies, how you cite the sources to make them notable, keep going — just from sources that don't connect to it so as to satisfy another WP guideline about conflict of interest — as in writing something you're connected/affiliated to. Wikipedia hates it, and may have consequences for your account if repeated severally. For example, since your topic is from a location in the UK, why not look up for this topic in independent sources like The Guardian, BBC News, The Independent, Metro, Sky News and those lines of news sources. Once the source number in the "References" section gets over 11, it'll get accepted/approved and it'll be a proper article.

Third and last but not the least, summarising the two above points, your draft is notable, but needs to be neutral without promotional tone, especially the lead section like this (Copy-and-paste this if you wish):

Smarter Technologies Group (STG) is a British technology company based in Southampton, England that provides products intended to digital transition public and private sector organisations with modern and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies. It was founded from the integration of New Forest Communications (NFC) (founded in 2001) and Visionist Ltd (founded in 2009) in 2020.

Show more proof by continiuing to add sources explained in the "Secondly" paragraph and return here if you wish if they don't work out. Thanks for joining WP though!! Happy editing!! Intrisit (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Intrisit, please do not copy edit the talk page posts of others - this is against Wikipedia's guidelines. I have reverted your changes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new here

• Alone Together (film) PUBLISH STAGE
• Alone Together (film) REDIRECT

My article again moved to draft space. In the article talk page i added Class=Start [1] Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment According to WikiProject_Film/Assessment Quality_scale [2] it should be in main space right. why the article move to draft space Redirect also criteria for speedy deletion CSD R2 Process. This is happening because I add Class=Start instead of Class=stub. Neu84321^(talk) 18:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neu84321: Your article was moved to draftspace by a New Page Reviewer because of notability concerns, and you were notified of this on your talk page. You can submit the draft for review once you address the notability concerns. It has nothing to do with the article class assessment. ––FormalDude talk 06:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude Can you explain about Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment its purpose and use? Neu84321^(talk) 06:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neu84321: That is an optional feature used to help the Film WikiProject with data about the status of their articles. It allows them to easily see articles that need maintenance or improvement. Articles are not required to have class assessments. For context, WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors. ––FormalDude talk 06:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude how can we get assistance from other Wikipedia editors to help with this article? i add the template tag This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. Neu84321^(talk) 06:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neu84321: A good place to start would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. You can link to your draft and ask for input there. ––FormalDude talk 06:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude ok can you give your opinion. Alone Together (film) PUBLISH STAGE what is wrong with this article can give specific points for improvement. Neu84321^(talk) 06:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neu84321: The premise and production sections are not written and the cast list has no references. ––FormalDude talk 06:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Neu84321, the film hasn't neen released yet. Wait until it's been released and reviewed, then you'll be in a much stronger position to create an acceptable article about it. Wikipedia has no deadlines.   Maproom (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I would just like to know how to join a Wikiproject. Thanks! Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dinoz1 and thanks for wanting to join some Projects. The full list is at the link WP:LWP, so take a look and click through to those that interest you. Most active ones have a page where you sign up simply by adding your username. Then you should add the Project's Talk Page to your watchlist so you can see what's being discussed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Duke Humfry's Library was used before, fairly recently. Wis2fan (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wis2fan, welcome to the Teahouse. If you have questions or concerns about the picture of the day, you can bring them up here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I am writing an article. There are multiple issues with this article however, I am foraging ahead, plus, I am hoping to resolve all of them. I am older and HTML formatting is difficult for me, not impossible tho. When I go back and try to resolve the red error messages I do not resolve them at all. I fear I am actually making it worse by adding either more sources or adding the <ref></ref> and it saying it is empty Know I am misunderstanding how to ask for help even reading the help is a little confusing reading it in Latin, does not help me as it is not a true example so logically my brain misfires (could be my brain). I know everyone is busy and I am a first-time editor who jumped into the water without understanding everything so I have made many mistakes. How do I figure out this not having the information in the tagging? I do so thank you for help or an example for me. MusingSilence (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Myisha T Hill ––FormalDude talk 15:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I fixed them for you, you added <ref></ref> before every ref you used and double closed refs. I also removed a bunch of nonsense sources and suggest you take a read of WP:RS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Thanks, I thought I was making it worse, which evidentially I was! I am so appreciative! I am way older and the only way I know any HTML is from MySpace so that tells you some age! MusingSilence (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The notable people of Kasur Rehana Tabassan (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1145 § Notable people of Kasur - related question from several months ago. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rehana Tabassan, and welcome to the Teahouse. We do not normally add people to lists like that unless we already have a Wikipedia article about them (see WP:SOURCELIST). We do not appear to have articles about either of those people, so, no, they should not be added to that list at present. Please see Write the article first. ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, please where can I find the number of articles in a Portal (for instance, Portal:Religion) ? Thanks JMGuyon (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi JMGuyon, welcome to the Teahouse. We don't actually have a concept of whether an article is in a given portal, unless you have something very specific in mind like how many articles display a link to the portal, or how many articles are linked somewhere in the portal pages. There is often a WikiProject with the same subject as a portal. WikiProjects do have a precise article count: The number of articles where the talk page is tagged with the WikiProject. Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has Category:WikiProject Religion articles with 24,422 pages but some of them are other page types than articles. This search says there are 13,395 article talk pages in the category. Many articles about specific religions are only tagged with a WikiProject for the specific religion. For example, this search says Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity has 50,955 articles. Within Christianity there are also many specialized WikiProjects which may not tag with WikiProject Christianity. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh thank you very much for this information, PrimeHunter !--JMGuyon (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So my article of the 6th century in Lebanon was considered not notable, despite the fact that there's plenty of other wikipedia articles with the same X century in X country formula. (AND without any sort of secondary reliable sources), I feel like this is simply motivated by a bias due to ignorance on the history of Lebanon, what should I do? دانيالوه (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

دانيالوه, one person says that "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline"; even that one person doesn't say that the topic doesn't meet this. I'm unfamiliar with "Xth century in [nation]" articles and offhand don't even know whether this should be about "Lebanon" or instead about "Phoenicia Libanensis" or whatever; neither do I know whether it's expected that the lead sentence should, as here, say almost nothing. My gut (never a reliable source) tells me to start "The 6th century in Lebanon was marked by" and then two or three of the most important events or trends. And a minor point: the dates are surprisingly precise: "11 April 491", etc, according to which calendar? -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please note that all countries didn't really exist in their current form in the 6th century. So when I say 6th century in Lebanon I mean 6th century in the land what is now Lebanon (Or, the entities that were predecessors of the modern entity). As for the precise date, it follows the byzantine liturgical dating system, by the way, these dates had been already converted the dating of the Gregorian calendar by the authors. دانيالوه (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the electricity in my house will cut pretty much right now,(Lebanon.) So I will have to respond tomorrow (If you give any additional reply). دانيالوه (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

دانيالوه, sorry not to have been clear. Yes, of course I realize that few of today's nations existed in the 6th century (though I don't mind at all if you guessed I didn't know this). Category:6th century by country leads us to, for example, the not-so-impressive article 6th century in England, defined by a nation that didn't yet exist; and it doesn't seem to lead to any article (as opposed to category) on "6th century in" what was then, but isn't now, a nation. So your title seems to comply with common practice in en:Wikipedia. To me, it's blazingly obvious that your article is about a notable matter. Sorry to hear about the power cuts; we'll be waiting for your return. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

While we are quibbling about that stuff, no nation existed in any meaningful sense in the 6th century either. Countries did exist (with a much lower degree of centralization than today, of course). Depending on who you ask, the concept of nation (= a bunch of people, most of which don’t know each other, feeling part of some unified community which is not based exclusively on religion) appeared somewhere between the 15th and 18th centuries. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course. (I was indulging in shorthand.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Back, thanks for the concerns. But now I'm not too sure on what to do with the notability tag. I've never interacted with an admin here and I'm not too sure wether a busy admin can be convinced with the cause of some – relatively – new user. I assume I can't (well I can but I shouldn't) just remove the tag thingy. If you have any additional advice they would be appreciated, Thanks. دانيالوه (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see any difference between this and the "nth century in literature" articles. However, those are normally classified as list articles - so I'm going to rewrite the lead sentence slightly to match that and mark it as a list. I'll remove the tag for you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, done. Anyway, you're right that it's generally not a great idea to remove a tag someone put on an article you've worked on if you're not sure that it was put on by mistake. Typically, though, maintenance tags are used to draw attention to things that need fixing about an article, so for example if someone tags something you just wrote with, say "lead too short" or "one source", that's an invitation for you to expand the lead or add some more sources (and then go ahead and remove the tag). If you're not sure if you've solved something you can always ask for someone else to have a look at it and see what they think.

By the way - it wasn't an admin who tagged the page, but someone working on New Pages Patrol. You'll see them come by when you start new articles. Mostly, they check to see if articles belong in wikipedia mainspace or if they need to be moved to draft or deleted. They're often pretty heavy-handed on maintenance tags (sorry). -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. دانيالوه (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

asilvering

Hey! Didn't notice your two additional replies till' now. Thanks for the useful informations. دانيالوه (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added reliable sources for Draft:Raymond Pichard. What can I do so this article doesn't get rejected. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like right now it's just waiting for someone to delete the redirect in mainspace so that the article can be accepted. So just patience for now. -- asilvering (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

As a separate issue, are you editing logged in and also not logged in, showing up as IP 80.1.188.112? Please edit only when logged in. David notMD (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

I think I'm finally ready to seek review of my first page, but the categories I thought I added at the bottom yesterday don't seem to be there. I did have a hard time finding some initially, and I'm worried I must have done something wrong it they didn't work. I can't figure out where the ones I added went. I followed the prompts, though it was a bit hard to find applicable categories, but I thought I'd added a few, as requested. (It does say Afi draft there.)

I sure could use some eyeballs on this page to tell me if it passes muster before I submit it formally because I'd love to have it sail through. I'm concerned that the infobox is a little word-heavy, but my subject has a variety of credits that seem to be worth mentioning. I also know one or two of my 95 references are not preferred (discogs and ImdB) but in both cases, they seemed to be worth including, and I do see them used regularly on other pages.

I also have not uploaded backup screenshots of web pages to the Internet archive yet, but I figure I can go back and add those if I've done everything else right.

Appreciate any feedback I can get!

～～～～ TexasEditor1 (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Mark Addison

@TexasEditor1: Drafts aren't supposed to be categorized, so don't worry about that. ––FormalDude talk 11:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

For further information see Wikipedia:DRAFTNOCAT. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! The only reason I tried to add any was because I've been staring at a notice that pops up every time I work on my page, suggesting I can get my draft reviewed faster by adding tags and seemingly, categories.

But your link definitely provided me with valuable info when I started clicking ... thanks very much! TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1: I see no attempt to add categories and Special:Contributions/TexasEditor1 has no edits on 10 July, at least not in Wikipedia's UTC time. In Texas time you added an infobox in [3] but such an edit does not add categories. See Help:VisualEditor#Editing categories for how to add categories in VisualEditor, but drafts aren't supposed to be categorized as said above. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That is weird. Maybe I didn't save them, but I was trying to follow the recommendation to get my page reviewed faster by adding tags. Maybe I should have used that word instead of categories. But I tried to add both, using the visual editor. When I tried to add tags, it took me to the WikiProject Tags page, and showed the page qualifies for a number of WikiProject areas. And I'm now remembering I got confused trying to figure out how to indicate all of them.

Bear with me for a sec while a veer over to a possibly related issue: I've also been making edits here and there whenever I find a page that I think I can help, and I'm not seeing evidence in some cases, which is a troubling because I'm trying to be an active contributor—and to reach a level that will allow me to access the library. But some are minor punctuation changes and I can understand if they don't really count as edits. But ... a few days ago, when I made some edits, I got a congratulations box telling me I was entitled to post a user box, and when I clicked to figure out what that meant, I fell into another rabbit hole about designing boxes, then landed in a place that seemed to want me to start a user page—which I already have. So I do feel a little bit like I'm living Alice's life (but she's always held a special place in my heart).

So I'm about to click to attach tags, but have no idea if that means I need to join all of the project groups that popped up ... or what.

In any case, I'm just trying to get this page posted and follow all directions to do it correctly. Would it be appropriate to ask you to take a look and see if it all looks kosher? I know I have a few undesirable references, but I've just learned it's apparently acceptable to use ImdB as an external reference, according to this reply I saw to a different inquiry: "@Chamuss: IMDB can be validly used in the external links section of articles. There is a specific template, so that in the case you want to cite it would be {{imdb name|0581683|Bannister Merwin}} which renders as Bannister Merwin at IMDb. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2022" TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the input! TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1: WikiProject tags belong on talk pages and you added many (too many, it's just a biography which mentions some of the subject's work) to Draft talk:Mark Addison on 8 July. They place the talk page in categories. A talk page edit cannot place a category on the associated non-talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primehunter,

I tried to reply to your last message, but it seems to have been deleted. But I'm sensing you're telling me to delete those tags. Will that affect how fast my page gets a review? TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1: WikiProject tags will probably not affect reviewers but they are volunteers who choose where to work so it's hard to tell. I have removed some unsuitable WikiProject tags.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I posted an article on Wikipedia today, and just received this message. Nore sure what it means. Can you help? "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Rounatenk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Rounatenk (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Rounatenk! It means that (1) you posted your attempted 'article' on your User Talk page, which is only supposed to be used to say something about yourself as a Wikipedia editor and to preserve links and notes helpful for your Wikipedia editing activities; and (2) whatever you posted was unsuitable material for any potential Wikipedia article, or else the deleter would have likely changed it to a Draft.

The various grounds for speedily deleting material are described here. As you can see, there are a lot of them. I see that another editor has now placed a welcome message with useful links and advice on your User Talk page. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.14 (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit late and the page has been deleted so I can't see it. However, please remember that drafts for articles should be made in a subpage (not on your main user page) or in the draft namespace. Hope this helps. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 04:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Does Casetoo meet notability guidelines/criteria ? 205.253.61.166 (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That depends on who Casetoo is and what they do. You can review the notability guidelines for biographies in general; there are more specific guidelines for musicians or other fields. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

still waiting Simohayhafan (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Simohayhafan Reviews are conducted by volunteers, doing what they can when they can, there is no timeframe, and it's possible it could take months- though your draft is likely to be declined quickly. Your personal knowledge is unacceptable as a source, as there is no way to verify that. All articles on Wikipedia must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Wikipedia does not summarize personal knowledge. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Simohayhafan (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@SimohayhafanHe Kinda decided. Hey imma make something like this. Does that sound anything at all like something you would read in an encyclopedia? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Simohayhafan Your Draft:Suomi KP-22 has been declined twice for lack of references, use of personal knowledge ('original research' is forbidden) and inappropriate style. I strongly recommend you model your attempts on articles about other military weapons. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me I'm new to Wikipedia and I tried to create a page about the county commissioners in Oklahoma and article that was rejected, the person who rejected it said that for it to not be rejected I would need to add more secondary sources and would have to create a "parent article" and I just want to make sure I understand what that exactly is before I actually do it. What they are saying is that I have to make a different article about the commissioners and describe what they do and how long they serve for in Oklahoma that sort of thing right? In regard to secondary sources that just mean finding a bunch of newspapers or news sites that say these things happened right?

I apologize if this is a dumb question and I appreciate you answering it.

Please and Thank you

Free city of stratford ok (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really an experienced editor myself, but I'll answer your questions with my knowledge. So first, you have to make an article describing the post of the County Commissioner Of Oklahoma itself, and then make this article. You also have to list sources which are secondary, and your understanding here is correct, but make sure these sources are reliable. Your draft also has to pass the required notability criterion. Best of luck, Vial of Power (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a dumb question - the Teahouse is here to answer questions from newcomers to the vast and complicated edifice that is Wikipedia.

The reviewer SmokeyJoe pointed out that you have created a list of not obviously notable people, and we don't like those: lists in Wikipedia are usually lists of things or people that are already the subjects of articles. But SmokeyJoe's further point is that an article about the office of County Commissioner would be much more valuable for Wikipedia than a mere list of incumbents. Why should the reader care who held these offices when, if they can't easily find why there is such an office and what the commissioners are responble for?

To do so, you would indeed need to find sources which were not from the state or county governments - ideally, for this purpose, I suspect that textbooks about local government in Oklahoma would be the best sources, but maybe some newspaper articles would be helpful too. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Just caught this, responsible*.- Vial of Power (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The draft submission was declined, not rejected. It can still be worked on further. The replies by editors here should be helpful in pointing you the direction in having the draft improved. Cheers. – robertsky (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Free city of stratford ok How will that page be kept up to date? Do you plan to maintain it? And I agree with ColinFine, a list of names like this isn't really very interesting; an article about the office would be much more useful. If I really wanted to know the officeholders, I would either use a search engine, or look for some page at the Oklahoma state government site. And I can't think of why anyone would want to know ALL of them. It's a maintenance nightmare because no one who sees the article will ever know if it's out of date... you can't tell by looking. At least those are my opinions. Don't let this discourage you from creating articles, and I did not intend to sound so harsh. Keep learning!. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to get the draft Wikipedia page for “Tiffany M. Cartwright” resubmitted to a regular page. I just added four references. Three of the references were articles from The Associated Press (A national news outlet). They each verify Tiffany M. Cartwright was the legal counsel for three major civil rights cases. I added a fourth reference from the senate judiciary committee which further documented additional cases.

All of this is in addition to Tiffany M. Cartwright being a current nominee from the president of the USA for a lifetime appointment for a federal judgeship. She has already had her hearing in the senate judiciary committee and they have already cited her out of committee to the senate floor where she is currently in queue for a final senate floor vote.

Can you assist me with what else is needed to make her a notable figure so we can get her moved from draft? MIAJudges (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For Draft:Tiffany M. Cartwright, is this just WP:TOOSOON, as she has not yet been appointed to federal judgeship? David notMD (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

MIAJudges It is too soon for this article, once she is confirmed by the Senate, then it would be fine. She cannot be made a notable figure by us, only the Senate. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s why I am confused. There are dozens of other articles on Wikipedia of people that were voted on by the senate who were not confirmed. There pages still exists despite their failed vote by the senate so I do not understand why this one persons article was moved to DRAFT. She has successfully been voted on by the Senate judiciary committee.

Even besides that, this person is notable stand alone even without being a nominee for a federal judgeship. I listed three major civil rights cases in which she was the legal counsel for the winning team. These were featured in The Associated Press indicating they were a national story. We have Wikipedia pages of other figures for lawyers that have won major cases. So I guess my question is what do I need to do in order to justify making her page worthy of a Wikipedia page just based on that alone? I added three links of three separate pages that detail those cases. Would additional articles showing her being the lead attorney be suffice? How about awards she has received for her civil rights work? I can include those links as well. MIAJudges (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

MIAJudges References to articles about cases she won (or lost) are useful information, in the same way that listing films is useful for an article about an actor, or books published for an author, but can you find more reliable source references to published content about her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@MIAJudges "There are dozens of other articles on Wikipedia of people that were voted on by the senate who were not confirmed." Please see Other Stuff Exists. Those other article subjects might be notable for other reasons, and maybe some of them should be deleted. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § reliable sources

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

plz look forward to these Japanese websites.

https://www.zakzak.co.jp/

https://www.excite.co.jp/

what's their reliability? They look unpopular but i maybe wrong. I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere in wikipedia regarding its credibility. Though i found some academic books which cites https://www.zakzak.co.jp/ as its source of info. But i'm still very confused. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources don't exist in a vacuum, reliability is also context dependent with very few exceptions. So what context are we talking here? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well its regarding Teresa Teng. https://www.excite.co.jp/news/article/Kkbox_1235/ https://www.zakzak.co.jp/entertainment/ent-news/news/20100408/enn1004081617006-n2.htm

Both claims that she has sold 100 million records. Arorapriyansh333 (talk)

@Arorapriyansh333: Considering the highest selling album is Thriller at 70 million, I would say no, they're not reliable. ––FormalDude talk 17:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you read properly? I'm not referring to one album. It's about total sales of all her albums. Arorapriyansh333 (talk)

@Arorapriyansh333: That answer seemed unnecessarily curt or rude, if you don't mind my saying. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Arorapriyansh333. I'm not sure that I can read properly, but I'll have a bash at doing so all the same. Putting aside for a moment the matter of their reliability (or not), both the Excite page (actually the third in the sequence of three) and the Zakzak page say that sales are said to be well over 100 million. (Are said by whom? Neither tells us.) The Excite piece is attributed to a "KKBox writer" named 濱安紹子; the Zakzak piece is unsigned but says that Zakzak is part of, or related to, Yūkan Fuji (a supōtsu shinbun); So they both look dodgy to me; but anyway neither "claims that she has sold 100 million records". -- Hoary (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: so you are saying that Yūkan Fuji is not a reliable newspaper? Can i know why? And sorry for that. I was only saying have you read those links properly? I wasn't rude. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Arorapriyansh333, it's a supōtsu shinbun, which literally means "sports newspaper" but actually is a congeries of spectator sports news, celeb news, and (often) softcore porn. It's not reliable, but neither is it toxic. The main problem is that the Yūkan Fuji piece doesn't say that she's sold over 100 million records, merely that it is said -- by whom? where? We're not told -- that she has done so. -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: yeah I see that. Thank you for your ensight. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to request a page be created for the star WASP-96. I have a draft ready:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WASP-96

The reason I'm asking now (instead of waiting for the backlog) is because this star is the subject of initial observations by the James Webb Space Telescope. The photos/data will be released by NASA in a few hours, and its sudden notability will likely necessitate page creation. The planet orbiting this star already has a page created, WASP-96b.

Thank you for the help! Epsilonal (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @Epsilonal and welcome to the teahouse! good news, the draft has been accepted and been turned into an article! you can continue to improve the article now, adding new sources and updates whenever relevant (and supported by reliable sources). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

can someone please help me insert a template ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tony_Rabalao TamarToronto (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

TamarToronto, inserting any template would be a waste of time at this stage. It would do nothing to help acceptance of this draft. What this draft desperately needs are signs of notability (as understood in Wikipedia), as evidenced by what's written in reliable sources (which of course must be independent of Rabalao). -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@TamarToronto: Once you have established whether this person meets either WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN, then it would be worth continuing and adding a template. The code you should add in WP:Source Editor can be pasted in, but unwanted or irrelevant fields should then be removed to avoid cluttering up the page. See Template:Infobox musical artist or Template:Infobox person to choose the most suitable one. (As an aside, @Hoary:, can you suggest why it's not posible to click 'reply' on this thread, whereas it works on the ones above. I had to click 'edit' before it would let me add this response). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you Nick. how do I insert this template Template:Infobox musical artist TamarToronto (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@TamarToronto: You should have copied the text (wikimarkup) in the white section of that page. I've done it for you. Not to be rude, but , like Hoary siad, don't waste your time unless you can find published, independent and reliable sources that talk about this person. You've declared that you know him - but you can't use your personal knowledge to create an article. Everything must be verifiable against published sources. If they don't exist, nor can the article because the person won't be deemed notable. Even Suga from boyband, BTS, didn't get an article of his own until he'd had a hit solo single. Just making music or being in a band simply isn't enough. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Nick, I don't see "reply" on this or any other thread. For this thread, as for any other, I just see the thread title, and, to the right of it, "[ edit ]" or similar. (Is "reply" perhaps a (mis)feature that's specific to the "visual editor"? If I have ever used that, it was only once, and for less than five minutes.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: Its part of WP:REPLYTOOL or the other discussion tools that are now enabled by default for new users. RudolfRed (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: Check to see if Preferences → Editing → Discussion pages → Enable quick replying is checked for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

RudolfRed, Tenryuu, thank you both, I suppose. Though actually it sounds like a solution to a problem that I don't have. (The problem, if it was one, was Nick's.) Still, it's of mild interest, as something has recently been mystifying me. A poses a question. B posts an answer, by writing below and prefixing this with a colon. C posts a different answer to A's question (ignoring B's answer), by writing below and prefixing this with -- how many colons? With no hesitation, I'd say one; but the (newish) custom hereabouts seems to be two. Is this perhaps a symptom of "quick replying"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think the Reply tool does that, Hoary: in my experience, if I use it, my reply comes below any existing replies to the particular post I'm replying to, and indented only once. (Don't know what it would do if the existing reply were already indented two stops).

The reason I use it is that it shows me the display version or my post as I type it, so I don't have to go "Preview" and then back again to edit. ColinFine (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

My guess is that User C is using the reply link or similar affixed to the end of B's comment because it's the closer one after reading through the section, which indents C's comment one level further than B's. I haven't seen any changes to the guidance WP:INDENT lately, which is why I've been adjusting indent levels on this page when a user replies to someone else but piggybacks off my comment such that it looks like they're replying to me. It's not as bad if they ping the intended user, but I would prefer to keep the thread structure consistent and ordered to get new users in the good habit of proper threading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

How to contact wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proboko (talk • contribs)

Proboko Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. By posting here, you have contacted Wikipedia- there is no central authority to contact. What is your question? Is it the one you had in a longer message here before removing it? 331dot (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise editors with problems. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Also see WP:CONTACT. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is Eumillipes start-class when it basically summarizes all known, available information on the subject (e.g. the only scientific paper and a few high-quality news sources)? You can't expand it more than that. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 12:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Vortex3427 Rating of articles is not a terribly important aspect, except for those rated B or higher. See WP:Assessing articles for an essay on this. You, or anyone else can re-rate an article up to that level but sometimes it s best to be familiar with the specific criteria listed under the Projects that are interested in it (as listed on its Talk Page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

please tell which droneship mission till starlink 3-1 is missing on Autonomous spaceport drone ship page's vessel mission section. This https://spacexfleet.com/droneship-data tells us till 94 attempts, remove 2 cancelled attempts form 92 but my count says 91 for starlink 4-11. Please help out. Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Also asked in HelpDesk. Don't ask the same question in two different locations. - X201 (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

ok i will mind it Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If someone starts asking questions regarding the holocaust (i.e. number of victim, death methods used), would it result in a immediate ban? Isabella GeIato (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Take a look Dilsha Prasannan who is the winner of Biggboss Malayalam last season, is winning the reality show considered notable? Because the article only depends upon the reality show’s coverages. Also when I check additional notability for television shows, I found that’s marked ‘false proposal. Onmyway22 talk 15:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22, see WP:REALITY. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Onmyway22. What really matters is whether or not the person has received significant coverage in truly reliable sources. In this case, of the ten references, six are to the Times of India, a newspaper that, despite its impressive name, has a poor reputation for reliability, especially in its coverage of entertainers. It should ever be used as a reference in a biography of a living person. Cullen328 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 So? Can we remove the references as clean up? Onmyway22 talk 16:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Onmyway22, you should try to find higher quality sources for the assertions that are now sourced to the Times of India. If you can find them, then replace the references. If you cannot find a reliable source, then remove the assertion. Cullen328 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

What are the rules regarding TV episode titles?

I'm wondering because I've just noticed that a TV series has the same episode titles listed in the episode guides on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Tubi TV etc and it's original network Channel 4.

Yet on-screen it doesn't show those titles anywhere...

...However they do have different counties and regions as the on-screen titles.

I'm not sure what to do with the titles on IMDB as they only let you add 1 episode title, and no alternative episode titles...

...However on here, we could keep the episode guide titles, and add the on-screen titles next to them.

Eg.

• One of Us - London
• Hardcore - Humberside
• Heroes - West Yorkshire
• The Greater Good - Scottish Borders
• Firewall - Greater Manchester
• Necessary Means - Nottinghamshire
• Colour Blind (Part One) - London
• Colour Blind (Part Two) - London Danstarr69 (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Danstarr69, welcome back to the Teahouse. This would be a good question to ask the folks over at WP:TELEVISION. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Why there is no article available on "CounterExtremism" like Counterterrorism. After Terrorism the second biggest challenge for humanity is extremism. There are many theories and practices in the world, many nations are combating with this by making laws, educational changes, awareness and crack down, so i request here kindly make an article on this. 103.141.159.230 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. We do have an article Counter Extremism Project about an organization dedicated to opposing extremism. If you think that a broader article is called for, please read and study Your first article, and get to work. Cullen328 (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Counter Extremism Project article is about an organisation, it can't cover CounterExtremism. 103.141.159.230 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Anybody may request an article: the official place to do so is at requested articles. Unfortunately, this being a volunteer project where editors work on what they choose, there is no guarantee that anybody will pick up such a request. It is probably slightly more likely that they will if somebody (eg you) does some of the hard work of finding the reliable independent sources which will be required to establish that the topic meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Please read your first article. ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Is permission required to use a flow diagram from the site? Specifically, it is the first diagram on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_processes Baumer6871 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baumer6871, if I click on the flow diagram, I can see the license it's released under in the bottom right corner; if I then click on the "More details" button, I can read an explanation of the licensing and other details about the image (I'm not sure if the process will be the same on your device). Reading the licensing section here will tell you the terms under which you can use the diagram. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baumer6871 No, you do not need permission to re-use the graphic. But the licence does require you to acknowledge the username of the person whop created it. i.e. User:Mbeychok Sadly, they are deceased, but that small requirement still stands, as is the fact that you may only re-use and publish the image under the same licence. i.e. you may not claim it as your copyright. We encourage re-use of our content, and this acknowledgements is a very small price to pay. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added several mainstream sources about this article Draft:La Tête et les Jambes the only reliable sources are in French. What more can I do to avoid being deleted? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Give the age of the series, Dwanyewest, I would think that contemporary print sources (newspaper articles?) would be your best bet if you have any access to relevant archives. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Dwanyewest! Sources in French aren't a problem. English-language sources are preferable over non-English where they exist (this being en-Wikipedia), but a source is Reliable (or not) regardless of the language it's in, and non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. For such a subject as this, I would expect the best sources to be in French, and for there to be few English ones available.

In the case of non-European languages in non-Roman scripts, such sources can slow down editing and assessment progress simply because few editors and reviewers on en-Wikipedia will be able to understand them (and computer translation is not yet optimal for encyclopaedic accuracy), but so many English speakers have a reasonable grasp of French that this won't apply. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.14 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest Don't worry about the article being deleted - it's in Articles for Creation now, so it's not going anywhere unless it is a blatant copyright violation or you abandon it for six months. What you do need to do is find enough sources (French-language or otherwise) to show that the show is itself notable (see WP:GNG). -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. In third line of lede paragraph, it says YYC is 5,140 acres when it says clearly in its factsheet it is 5,144 acres. Can you change the conversion so it converts to the proper acreage? All other conversions are right.(Sqmi,Hectares). Thank you for your time. Theairportman33531 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Theairportman33531, thanks for pointing that out! I've changed it as such; it's weird that the conversion template is inaccurate. I'd like to add, though, you should bring such article-specific problems in the article's talk page next time-- this is a forum for questions on general Wiki editing. GeraldWL 02:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

upload my picture Philipmampad (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Philipmampad, can you be more specific? Why do you think your photo belongs on Wikipedia? You can upload photos taken by you on Wikimedia Commons. GeraldWL 02:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the Teahouse community! I am planning to draft a new article for an online knowledge database for historical resources which is free for the public to access. The name of the web application is Engineering Historical Memory (EHM) which has won some international awards and been mentioned in several scholarly publications (peer-reviewed journals, book etc.).

I'm part of the research team for this online database and understand that I need to disclose COI when submitting the article for the AfC review. I've previously submitted a draft for review but it had been removed due to promotional language and excess external links. I will definitely take note of these issues when drafting a new page later on and try my best to ensure neutrality with reliable and independent sources. I will also refer to some existing knowledge base Wiki-pages to see how they structure and present information.

I would like to seek the community's kind help to provide some more suggestions on any other things that I should pay attention to apart from the above, please? Thank you in advance for your support. Sincerely, ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ArgonautOfHistory. Your very first step is to comply with the Paid contributions disclosure. This is mandatory and non-negotiable, and applies whenever you edit regarding a topic where you have a financial interest, even when you are not paid specifically to edit Wikipedia. My second recommendation is to be honest about why your previous draft was deleted. The reason was that it was an unambiguous copyright violation. So, be extremely careful about copyright, and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines going forward. Please read and study Your first article, and follow all of the advice you will find there. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)·

Thank you for sharing the above! ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

What's the policy here when a user (any user) makes mass changes to replace a word they simply don't like (for example: replacing word loans or pseudo-loans with more English words because they think it's "substandard English", even though the word has been in reference dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster for a long time)?

Thanks. Thibaut (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. There's quite a lot of this around. Well, what's this particular user up to, exactly? Imaginably it's harmless, but imaginably it takes the prose back to that of a (supposed?) past. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: Oh dear, indeed. There are a couple of potential problems with that kind of editing. It might very well change the meaning of a sentence and introducde factual errors. A "more English" word (in the sense of being descended from Old English rather than having entered the language from Norman French or Latin or Persian or some other language) might mean something pretty different from the loanword it replaces. And making undiscussed mass changes that are not uncontroversial is problematic whatever the reason is (I mean, even if the replacement word is equally correct, it doesn't follow that the other word is "substandard", especially if other editors do not agree). There are words that are not ideal to use in an encyclopedia, but it doesn't really seem like that's the issue here. If your question is connected to the discussion here it looks like the editor making these changes needs to stop what they are doing. --bonadea contributions talk 12:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a query regarding an Upa-purana section of Baidya. The relevant query can be seen on the article talk page. A piece of uninterpreted Puranic information was there in the article. The editor has resolved the issue by removing the information and inserting the same in the footnote section. As per consensus, primary sources should be avoided. Can it be inserted in the footnote section? Thanks, Regards Satnam2408 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Satnam2408 welcome to Teahouse. In some situations, primary sources can be used, for non controversial claims, for example the name of a company, year a person was born. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:EXTERNAL for some additional tips. Secondary sources are of course preferred, especially for anything analytical. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the subject of a wikipedia article - Nicola Green

Much of the information is incorrect or out of date. I intend to follow wikipedia’s guidelines and I will not directly edit this article. I have been advised to make suggestions on the talk page in order to improve the overall quality of this article and help (if I can) to ensure there are no factual errors.

I have followed all of wikipedia's guidelines and protocols, and yet a single editor continues to remove any edits made (despite them being approved by other editors on the talk page).

They constantly target this article, and yet, when other editors make incorrect changes to this article, this editor does not remove the factual inaccuracies. They seem to monitor my edits with such tenacity that I believe they have malicious intentions. Could someone please advise me how to proceed? Is there anyway I can stop this person from constantly removing all the changes to this article? Or perhaps there is more advice I can follow in order to have this page updated.

Thank you so much NicolaGreen72 (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Step one. Don't ask the same question in multiple places. - X201 (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't sure which to use. My apologies. NicolaGreen72 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, you are going to have to stop using two accounts. This post was previously posted by PabloPompey, which has not declared the conflict. Slywriter (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sorry NicolaGreen72 (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

These have been honest mistakes, but I will not do it again. Beyond that, is there nothing I can do about this situation??? NicolaGreen72 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There are valid reasons sometimes to have multiple Wikipedia accounts (see WP:VALIDALT) but using one to edit a page for which you have a declared conflict-of-interest is not one of them. You were following the correct procedure by taking the {{edit request}} route via the Talk Page of the article. I am not sure why Justlettersandnumbers has suggested that a consensus needs to be reached before material can be added by that mechanism: my view of the policies and guidelines is that editors responding to such requests may just take them at face value and make the requested change(s) provided they improve the article and have adequate reliable sourcing. Indeed, some editors specifically work to fulfil such requests. Nevertheless, NicolaGreen72 you should always assume good faith in other editors. We are all volunteers here and are trying to improve the contents of Wikipedia. No doubt others more interested in biographies than me will now look again at your requests and see which should be incorporated into the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much to everyone for sharing all of the information with me.

Any rules broken were honest mistakes, which I will not do again! Thank you so so much for clarifying everything for me.

However, I do not believe this is done in good faith as @Justlettersandnumbers consistently removes edits to this article NicolaGreen72 (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers is an extremely experienced editor of many years standing and is also an admin here. His edits were all to ensure neutral tone, you should not be editing the article at all but limit yourself to requesting edits on the talk page. Also see WP:CRONY. Theroadislong (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

ok, thank you for clarifying NicolaGreen72 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

NicolaGreen72, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm just a host and editor here and I've made many mistakes in editing so I get it. I appreciate your willingness to admit errors when you are presented with them and take corrective actions. I know the seemingly contradictory statements we sometimes receive can leave us bewildered and unsure of what to do. We can cut through some of that and simplify it. WP:COI states"COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. However, our policy on matters relating to living people allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly, including by the subject." This means there are times when it is appropriate for even the subject of a BLP to edit the article about themselves. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases the subject of a BLP should not edit the article or any article associated with themselves. As you have no doubt read the COI policy closely, the only means by which that policy gives for a subject to request changes is by using the {{request edit}} template). I currently disagree with the comments left by User:Justlettersandnumbers that, somehow you are to gain consensus before requesting an edit change by using the only prescribed method for COI editors to request changes according to the policy. But I believe they are trying to protect the neutrality of the article and that is always a good thing. I myself will always err on the side of caution and do no harm even if that means I fall on the wrong side of things in the end. I won't harp on the usage of two accounts too much because that has already been discussed and as any damage that may have happened to the article by the usage of two accounts to edit have been erased and as you have apologized and agreed to never allow the use of two accounts, whether a colleague or your own, to edit the article directly again there isn't anything really chronic or intractable at issue. I would welcome an explanation as to the purpose of the consensus before edit request comment as there may be underlying reasons allowed for by policy. Nicola, @Justlettersandnumbers is a very experienced editor, regardless, we all afford every editor the same good faith. That is especially critical in cases where we disagree on the implementation or interpretation of policy. --ARoseWolf 14:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. I understand now about:

1. Having multiple accounts
2. Editing an article about myself
3. Good faith of editors

I will no longer attempt to make changes to this page, and I apologise for any rules broken or any inconveniences caused.

However, I will monitor this page for factual inaccuracies, particularly, like what was done earlier this month, where my children's names (which should not be on the page at all) where added incorrectly. NicolaGreen72 (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to get a little personal, I believe that falls under what the policy calls "obvious errors". As an encyclopedia that contains biographies of living persons it is extremely important for the encyclopedia to get it right and when in doubt it is always better to do no harm to the subject or those closely associated. That does not mean that there can never be anything negative written about a subject, especially if it is in reliable sources but an editor should use extreme caution and make sure the information they are adding is due in accordance with the subjects notability. As a mother, albeit not notable enough to have an article myself, I do understand our protective nature when it comes to our children. I believe the article, leaving them unnamed, in those regards is the best solution at this point. --ARoseWolf 14:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

NicolaGreen72, you've generously made several apologies here, thank you! I think we all recognise that our policies and practices are fairly inscrutable to those not familiar with them, so not understanding them isn't really something you need to apologise for. I hope that you now understand a little better how this works, and why some of your edits were reverted?

I'd like to make a couple of apologies of my own: first, I'm quite mortified that I didn't notice the silly vandalism on 1 July relating to your children; as ARoseWolf says, removal of that kind of nonsense is just the kind of edit that you can make yourself. Secondly, when I declined your edit request here on 3 March, I used an automated tool and did not notice that it had left a rather strange message – the bit about seeking consensus on the talk-page was OK, but "before using the {{Request edit}} template" didn't really make any sense, as that's what you'd already done. I'm sorry for both those things, particularly the first of them.

May I offer one piece of advice that I don't see in the various useful comments above: the request edit process is for the correction of fundamental errors or omissions of basic verifiable fact, and shouldn't be used to try to massage or spin the text of the article – you can safely leave the tone of the page to us. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to Terasail: can we improve the message left by your useful script in this use-case? Note to Michael D. Turnbull: asking the requesting editor to obtain talk-page consensus is one of the standard responses to a {{Request edit}}; in this case the reply was left using a script and was ... well, unusual! – as I should have noticed at the time. Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Justlettersandnumbers for the clarification of the comments left (it did look a little automated to me but I wasn't sure) and for the additional advice given to Nicola. I do believe the automated response stems from this statement on WP:ER that I found when researching it a bit more."Requests should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change, and consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial.

NicolaGreen72, if you do decide to make any further edit requests on the articles talk page, clearly your prerogative, I would suggest reading up on edit requests and how to seek consensus prior to making an edit request where the information may be controversial. Controversial does not necessarily mean what we would think it would. A non-controversial edit would include those that do not need a source to make such as as correcting typographical errors or disambiguating links. In that case you can make the edit request or do the edit yourself. As stated, obvious vandalism can be reverted by anyone, including you. --ARoseWolf 15:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers I can update the summaries that my scripts give, I am not too clear on what the change should be here though. If the automated responses need changing they are at Template:ECOI. I will update my tool soon to be in line with the protected request tool that I have. Terasail^[✉️] 15:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers

Thank you so much for this message, and for clearing everything up. I am sorry for not seeing that your edits where in good faith, and I do really appreciate how much work you put into wikipedia! I feel like I completely understand what is going on now, and what can and cannot be done on wikipedia.

Thank you so much! Nicola NicolaGreen72 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way a "civilian" can access my User page? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Pete Best Beatles and welcome to the Teahouse. All information published on Wikipedia, either on articles or pages, is public and recorded. To answer your question directly, yes, anyone can view your user page. --ARoseWolf 14:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

But not everyone can edit it, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages. Lectonar (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

How can they access it? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "access", Pete Best Beatles? Do you mean, view it or edit it? --ARoseWolf 14:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Simply view it. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can do that simply by clicking on your Username in a post like the one you have just made, or from the edit history of any article you have contributed to. Clearly, it helps the collaboration necessary within Wikipedia that user Pages and associated Talk Pages are readily available. Etiquette means that I would rarely if ever edit another user's page unless they had asked me to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, by clicking on your User page and then View history, editors can see past versions of your User page, even if you have deleted content, so take care in what you say about yourself! David notMD (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm not being clear. I want to know how I can direct an "outsider" to my User page - what phrase would they need to search with? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pete Best Beatles you can link it like this. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User pages are not indexed by search engines, so no "phrase" will work: the URL as supplied above would be needed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

To search internally they would need to enterUser:Pete Best Beatles in the "Search Wikipedia" bar and it would have the same affect as the provided url. --ARoseWolf 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried uploading the logo of the Satakunnan Kansa newspaper to Wikimedia Commons. It didnt work because the image title was descriptive enough.

What am i supposed to do? Nothing worked, i changed the title many times and all got rejected. --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kilaseell. As far as I can see from their website, the only thing I would call a logo is the particular font and typeface they use for their name. This is below the threshold for copyright protection and you should be able to upload a version to Commons by following the procedures laid out at WP:LOGO. If something doesn't work, please explain in more detail what errors result. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I know how to upload images and everything, i even gave it the correct copyright tag. I tried to give the image a name but it just says that the title has to be more descriptive. I do not know why this happens, it just happens. --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I got it to work now! --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 15:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. I have seen many glossaries on Wikipedia, and I'm asking myself: how are those glossaries created? How can I create one myself while respecting Wikipedia's guidelines? NikoPalad67140 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, NikoPalad67140. You can find guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia contributors thank you so much for the volunteer work.

I'm not new to wikipedia in 2008 I tried to post some content about financial literacy but some people from Brasil block it. I didn't want to put personal advertising for books or my classes just prefer to share the knowledge that can do poverty relief.And do translation from English to Portuguese of Portugal so all the expertise will be available for all. Honestly I prefer not to post any content in a Portuguese Brazilian page because the way we write is considered wrong. I value very much community feedback from Brazilian and other contributors but being blocked just because I write in Portuguese of Portugal is not fair.https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finanças_pessoais thank you,best regards Rosina Ramos (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rosina Ramos: this is the english Wikipedia, we cannot help you with problems over at the Portuguese Wikipedia. I can't read Portuguese, but from what it seems pt:Finanças pessoais is tagged as being undersourced. Their equivalent of the Teahouse seems to be pt:Ajuda:Tire suas dúvidas. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you very much Victor Schmidt I will pose the question at pt ajuda. Financial literary subjects are new to the world and more newer in Portugal although we have already great expertise and proven results in the field, most of them are not PhD's in consumer economics to be regarded as valid. Rosina Ramos (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I want to confirm whether the criteria "...The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking..." includes all possible categories like direction, acting, music, editing, cinematography, and others for a movie? Would a film be notable if it has received only 1 award for "best supporting actor" category? Thanks! Insight 3 (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Insight 3. That language is intended to indicate that such a film is likely to be notable, but it is not a guarantee that an article about the film will be accepted. As the guideline says,The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist. In the end, a contemporary film must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, although those sources do not have to be readily available online. Cullen328 (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I am asking this particularly in context of older films where online press coverage is hard to find. To be more precise, I talking about a film:

1) released in 1976

2) with not enough press

3) received one award in best supporting category and this is supported by reliable online sources

Insight 3 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Insight 3, if there is "not enough press", as you put it, then how will you be able to write a verifiable and informative encyclopedia article about the film? Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Can anyone help me in making Manju Warrier article into semi protected. Many vandalism edits are made in the article. I wish to improve the article. If this vandalism edits are occurring again and again, it makes me difficult to improve the edits. Can anyone please help me out for this issue.Paavamjinn (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Paavamjinn: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may try and request semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi Paavamjinn. as far as I can see, one editor, who is not an IP, has been adding uncited material to that article and they have already been warned on their Talk Page about this by an experienced editor also working there. Note that vandalism has a very specific meaning (see WP:VANDALISM) that probably doesn't apply in this case. I suggest you start making your additions and for the moment just wait to see how things develop. More information at WP:SEMIGUIDE if you need it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Paavamjinn: I have semi-protected the article for six months, escalating the prior duration. Note that semi protection would not protect against edits from accounts more than 5 days old with more than 10 edits, which is going to be the case in the next couple of days for one editor you reverted. @Michael D. Turnbull: while I agree it is not vandalism, the article has suffered from disruption, and has been protected multiple times previously for the same reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist@Michael D. Turnbull@Tenryuu I need to add correct birth year in the article. But the news links are not available. But I have the government issue ID card of the individual. So can I use that as a proof for adding the correct year of birth in the article.Paavamjinn (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Paavamjinn How do you have access to this person's ID? In any event, it is not acceptable as a source, as it is not publicly available. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sources should publicly-available publications that can be verified by anyone. Personal knowledge, tribal knowledge, private documents, etc. aren't acceptable. If no such source exists for a year of birth, then simply omit it from the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@331dot@Anachronist currently I don't have access to it. I just asked about its there any chance or not. Thats itPaavamjinn (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not what you said, you said ". But I have the government issue ID card of the individual". 331dot (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that having it, such as it is in Mikaela Shiffrin in the German Wikipedia, is very useful. Among other things, the template with the total sum of podiums exists and is used in the same infobox for medals in international events. To object that the template is "medal template" and not also "podium template" is an inconsistent justification, because the title of the template itself would specify that it is podiums. Are you for or against its use? Kasper2006 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kasper2006. The Teahouse is a friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. It is not a place to organize a content discussion. I suggest you move it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding or Template talk:Infobox alpine ski racer. If it's not at the latter then definitely post a notification there when the dicussion is about that template. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, the problem is that no one answers there. Kasper2006 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kasper2006, you asked a question there - apparently the same question? - earlier this year and got several replies. If you're looking for a wider variety of opinions, you can try an RfC. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: I guess "there" meant Template talk:Infobox alpine ski racer. Three of the four previous posts got an answer within two hours by editors who are still active and may be among the 14 users with the page on their watchlist. The fourth post was by you and only said the vague "Weight - Don't work". That's not much to go on for somebody trying to answer. If you mean you tried to call it with a |weight= parameter and nothing happened then nothing was supposed to happen. The template has no such parameter and the documentation makes no claim it does. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Please excuse me I'm probably the fool. Yes, I posted the question in March 2022, but not 14 answers, I only got them from two users, one of whom is the one who dictated the law and who does the rollbacks. Ok probably I will not get out of this situation because I see that few are interested, so until I manage to sensitize other users on the matter, the law of the only one who decided it will apply, and that is that in the English Wikipedia the podiums of the World Cup competitions and in other Wikipedia, on the other hand, yes. Kasper2006 (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: PrimeHunter posted14 users with the page on their watchlist not14 answers. What PrimerHunter meant is that apparently 14 users are H:Watching that page and perhaps some of those users are the ones who answered your question. When you post something on a talk page, you sometimes need to be a little patient since all users are WP:VOLUNTEERs and some pages aren't watched by as many users as others are. If you feel a reasonable amount of time has passed and still nobody has replied, then try leaving a {{Please see}} template on the talk page of the WikiProjects under whose scope the page falls. You can usually find the names of such WikiProjects at the tops of article talk pages and most of them have their own talk pages. You don't need to repost the entire discussion on the WikiProject talk page, just enough (including a link) to let the project's members know about the discussion you started on the relevant talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: It's Template talk:Infobox alpine ski racer which was on the watchlist of 14 users (now 15). Non-administrators can only see "Fewer than 30 watchers" on Page information. My administrator account can see there are 15 but not who they are. Your vague post with no answers was on 27 January 2018. Page views went from 0 to 13 that day.[5] Maybe several of them were from you but I guess some of the watchers saw your edit on their watchlist and viewed the post without replying, maybe because it was unclear. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you. It is useless to hope that the news will interest someone, we tried and it did not work. The only thing is to make my change, if the user "bold" as usual makes his rollbacks, he takes him to ANI and goodnight, it cannot be that between two people he must necessarily be right. Kasper2006 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I did so --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi im new here and im interested in expanding michiya haruhata’s wiki article but I don’t know what I should add should it be lots of references or accomplishments and if so what kind of accomplishments or do I find information about said person to add 2A00:23C7:6996:B201:40B3:34C7:2447:D8AB (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to state thought that I am not a Japanese speaker so it may prove relatively difficult for me to find reliable sources of information such as news or particularly news papers so recommendations would be highly appreciated(he is a Japanese musician so Japanese music related news sources would be highly preferable) and also would like to inquire if possible to what is required to prove his notability do I need references from news sources on him or will I need awards and rankings and lastly when if or when I make these changes do I need to contact anyone to fact check or confirm these changes and also to remove the thing that says that said article is a stub or lacks some important attributes “thank you for you precious time any replies would be highly appreciated” 2A00:23C7:6996:B201:40B3:34C7:2447:D8AB (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now gained an account it’s goldsoldier75 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsoldier75 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Goldsoldier75 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Goldsoldier75, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To take your questions in order:

• The information you should add is, primarily, what independent sources say about him. A limited amount of information can be added from non-independent sources (such as his own website, or interviews with him), but most of an article should come from independent reliable sources. Do not add anything which you can find only from social media or from sites that are there to sell thing.
• Wikipedia policy requires that all information in an article be found in a reliable published source. Policy does not insist that every piece of information actually be cited to a source, but reviewers prefer if it is, especially in am article about a living person. Since you must have found the information in a reliable source in order to put it in the article, why not cite it?
• Awards and rankings are certainly the kind of information which goes in an article. Ideally, they will be cited to an independent source (not just to the organisation that gave the award, for example), but there is some room for discretion. It makes a difference whether the award is a widely recognised prestigious thing, or something a minor magazine or publisher has invented to sell things.
• Sources do not have to be in English, as long as they are reliable. But of course if you can't read Japanese, that may not help you. I don't know where to suggest you go for information about sources for Japanese music, but somebody at WP:WikiProject Japan may be able to help.
• You don't need to check with anybody before editing. If you think your changes might be contentious, or you're not sure how best to do them, it's worth starting a discussion on the article's talk page first; but if you're reasonably confident about your change, just make it. If somebody disagrees with it, they may revert you edit, and then you can start a discussion. See WP:BRD.
• That applies to the cleanup tags as well: if you think that you have addressed an issue, you can remove the relevant tag. (Notice the box with the tags has a link "(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)"

I hope these notes help : please come back and ask further if anything isn't clear. If you haven't read WP:NMUSIC and WP:YFA, they may help as well. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much kind sir you have been a great help if I have any other questions I will most certainly ask you Goldsoldier75 (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm doing some Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and my goal is to include the cited refs when I paste the copied text elsewhere. Sometimes the citation template is not in the copied block. Instead it might simply be called via a named ref tag. Do we have a gadget that will handle automatic referencing. i.e., something that will look up the citation in the named ref and populate the template in the copied block? Or do you have to look them each up individually and do a manual copy? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI, at the moment the project is to copy paragraphs discussing claims of 2020 election fraud into some research notes and possible outline article presently in my userspace here . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed that the 2020 United States Presidential Election page has, in its Election Results chart, a section that shows the margin that the popular vote by party for a particular state swung from 2016 to 2020, but other elections don't have that. So I'm planning on adding that to the other presidential elections, but I can't figure out how to add a new column to the chart. How do I do this? Macegav4774 (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Macegav4774: I think you're referring to the chart in this section? 2020 United States presidential election#Results by state That's called a wikitable. This may help Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and that is the table, but I don't know how to add a new cell like it tells me to do. How do I do that? Macegav4774 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone.

For some context, I'm an extremely new editor (created an account only three or four days ago) and have mostly contributed to basketball/NBA pages since that's my general interest.

If I wanted to describe how a certain player performed in a specific game like a debut game or a game where they got a career/season high in points, shot attempts, etc., would it be appropriate to use a box score as a citation? Or would it follow Wikipedia standards better if I used a credible news article that reported that information?

If there's a WP page or another question forum which could give me an answer for this, I'd greatly appreciate that information as well.

Thank you for your assistance. Some Guy Named Brandon (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Everything needs citation unless it falls in the WP:SKYISBLUE category. See Help:Citing sources and WP:Reliable sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

These pages helped out my situation. Thank you for responding, @NewsAndEventsGuy. Some Guy Named Brandon (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome; In that topic area things you also need to know might include WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Each of those pages will mention a corresponding "noticeboard". I suggest adding the noticeboards to your watch list and just following the conversations, regardless of topics,to get up to speed on how experienced eds (eds=editors) apply those three policies.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

since spgs apparently are not tanks i want to know how to rename so i can add the stugs and jagd series of tanks to my thing without them being deleted 1 min later. Simohayhafan (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Renaming categories is rarely something that should be be done without discussion. Given that you have already been involved in an acrimonious dispute, it would be doubly foolish to try and do so. (In addition to which , your choice of words suggests that this is pointy, which is another reason not to do it). Get consensus first. ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I peeked at the source venue and your talk pages....my advice is first read WP:CIVIL from start to finish. Then stop editing of a week but each day read WP:ANI. Then read the essay WP:Writing for the opponent. When you master the skill in the last one, that will help you remain CIVIL and not take the WP:BAIT which will help you stay out of WP:ANI. And then you will be ready to try to solve the underlying problem,maybe with the tools of WP:Dispute resolution. But don't bother if you are still pissed, because trying to form a consensus when you are one voice against many while angry is like trying to cross the English Channel in a paddleboat while drilling holes in the hull. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is some additional advice, Simohayhafan. Stop hollering in all caps and with strange formatting. Write like a serious, level headed, thoughtful adult. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello experienced Wikipedia editors,

I just want to ask for valuable input on how to further improve the page of Fernando Amorsolo, Filipino National Artist for Painting. I'm putting the links below:

Published Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Amorsolo New Sandbox article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prof.PMarini/sandbox

As a practice for the process of editing in Wikipedia, I translated the Filipino article about Fernando Amorsolo, even if there is already an existing article in English. If you review both, you will see that there are still significant differences between the two. With your experience and expertise, please help me decide which sections from the new sandbox article may be used to improve the existing published article.

Thank you very much! Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You are asking for far to much from Teahouse hosts who are here to provide general advice, but not in-depth article research. As you pointed out, Fernande Amorsolo exists. It was created in 2006 and has been edited >1000 times. You have created a longer version in your Sandbox, stating that this is a translation of an existing Filipino article. What I recommend is that on the Talk page of English Wikipedia, you intend to add/subtract content based on the Filipino article. Then, make a series of modest-sized edits to the English article, with references, each time explaining in the Edit summary where the new content came from. If you are reverted by another editor, invite that person to a discussion on the Talk page, in an effort to achieve consensus. Be aware that English Wikipedia has higher requirements for verifying references compared to some other-language Wikipedias. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise.

Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

David meant to link Fernando Amorsolo. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I had changed the spelling of the martial-art form to Kalarippayattu. But a user with more expertise in the field reverted it back to the other spelling in good faith. However, I need to revise the title of a book which is mentioned in the same article. It is written as 'Kalarippayattu – A Complete Guide to Kerala’s Ancient Martial Art', but I would like to change it to 'Kalarippayattu – The Complete Guide to Kerala’s Ancient Martial Art'. How do I approach this? Nickkoshy (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Nickkoshy, regardless of how the article title is spelled, make sure that the book title in the article is spelled exactly the same as the title on the cover. You would change the title just as you would edit anything in the article. If the book is part of a source citation, you will (in edit mode) find the book's information listed in the same position as the citation number standing in for it in the article. You can't edit a source citation/reference in the References section. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to add that, strictly speaking, the official title of a book is that shown on the title page. Very occasionally that shown on the cover is altered for display or design purposes.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Nickkoshy (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure whether this question should go under Help Desk or Policy at the "Village Pump" instead of here— but since the Teahouse is for newcomers and I'm still one, I'll go ahead here.

I wanted to upload several photos, one of the person who is the subject of an article I'm editing, and others that would be of interest to the topic of the article. Each time I get a notice that seems to say I can't do it unless it's a photo I myself took or I have some sort of permission to use it. But there are lots of photos throughout Wikipedia articles. If editors choose photos judiciously and give proper attribution, why the barrier?

I did notice, and looked at, some ancillary information that seemed to say it's possible, but I found it somewhat confusing. Augnablik (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Attribution doesn't negate copyright - attribution is required for compatibly licensed images, but giving attribution for a copyrighted image (ie. not pd or CC by 4.0) doesn't mean we can use it. So unless you own the copyright or can demonstrate it's compatibly licensed, it cannot be uploaded. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik, for more specifics, here's a link to the image use policy: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Identifying usable images. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I realize there's a distinction between types of images, but I was thinking of only ones that are in places like articles, books, etc. — ones that we see referenced all the time in publications, just like quotations of text. I'll read the information at the link you sent, and thanks for it, but I just wanted to make that clear. Augnablik (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik Images that you see in books, especially, have gotten clearance from the copyright holders-- often by the book publisher paying a negotiated license fee to each copyright holder. You can't simply upload images that you find on various web pages to WP; most such images are copyrighted. The images in WP articles are in ths public domain, or licensed with one of the acceptable Creative Commons licenses, or are used under the documented rules for "fair use". If you click on any WP image, you will see information about the image, including its copyright status. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So then, Praxidicae, if an image published in a book is shown at a Web site, it should be okay to copy into a Wikipedia article, right? Augnablik (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik, no, absolutely not. Being published in a book or uploaded to a website is not a guarantee that an image has been released under an appropriate license. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik I will repeat: "You can't simply upload images that you find on various web pages to WP; most such images are copyrighted". My point about images in books is that those images have been licensed with (usually) a license fee and a license agreement with each copyright holder. I hope it is clear now. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

97.126.96.239 and 71.228.112.175 — I appreciate your weighing in on this issue, but I can see that it will be quite a long time (if ever!) before I try to add any images to articles I edit. I'm just not grasping the problem why published images that would have been cleared before appearing in other publications shouldn't be okay to put in Wikipedia too. Augnablik (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik, I'm not sure what you mean by "cleared". An image can be released by its copyright holder under any number of different licenses which allow different kinds of reuse - for instance, no reuse at all unless payment is made, or only reusable by a specific organization, or only reusable for specific purposes. Not all of those licenses are compatible with being reused on Wikipedia. Uploading to Commons requires a license that allows free use; non-free content can sometimes be used on Wikipedia, but only under very specific, limited circumstances (see WP:FAIRUSE). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "copyright clearance" is used for the process of a book publisher negotiating and paying a fee to the copyright holder of each image that the publisher wants to use in a book. I used that term, and it might have been confusing if you don't know it. (Once a fee has been paid by the book publisher for one image, that image is "cleared" to be used in that book.) The pictures aren't "cleared" to be used anywhere else, and they are still copyrighted. Sorry if that was confusing. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I create articles in draftspace so I can avoid them being draftified and going into AFC Hell where they will inevitably remain for months after submission even when perfectly suited for mainspace, so why are AFC templates added to them anyways now? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Unless I am misreading the page history, you are the one that added it to Draft:Religious_Confucianism, and then removed it again. Can you clarify your question? RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Helpful to link to the article in question but reviewing your history, at least one article was deemed not ready for mainspace and moved to draft, at which point the editor's move script also added the AfC banner. Slywriter (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the AFC submission (which I think was a wise thing to do) but please don't move it yourself into mainspace yet, or I or another editor may well move it back again. I suspect that the topic may well be notable (religion is not my area), but I waded through sentence after sentence or turgid text which had little logical construction or clarity. Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia, and articles ought to be understandable by the average undergraduate or high school student. If too many assumptions are made, it just becomes a 'wall of words' with little to no meaning. And that' swhat I see at the moment. The 1st and 2nd sentences of the lead were the initial stumbling blocks.

The 1st sentence just says:Religious Confucianism, the system of Religious Confucianism originated from the five religions of the Three Dynasties and the Jongmyo rites. Please explain that; and if you can do so simply, please use your explanation as the first sentence to replace the current one. We need to first know what the concept is, and only then to know where it comes from. Don't define a concept by saying it's the concept - that is meaningless.

The second sentence is equally illogically constructed, namely:Ritual music system, which gradually disintegrated during the Western Zhou Dynasty, Confucius founded Confucianism in order to revive the Ritual music [zh] based on the ideal of restoration of the king's way. To me, this sounds like someone who has simply translated another language Wikipedia page without actually understanding what it means, or how to communicate the concepts in clear, plain English.

I'm afraid you have a huge amount of work still to do on this article before it is ready for mainspace, and I suggest removing a lot of the waffle that you do not understand (or fear that others may not understand) and stick to defining what this topic actually is so that a layman can comprehend and appreciate what it is, and use a browser translate button to check and verify your cited sources (many of which also need a lot of cleaning up, by the look of things).

This may all sound rather harsh, but I hope it will help you make a better article - and thank you for your desire to bring this topic to a wider audience in due course. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes yeah it needs a lot of improvement. I imagine the article will be about a third smaller by the time I want to move it into mainspace. It's a big article and has a lot of parts I already removed because of being uncited or low quality Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 23:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Great. Thank you for your understanding. Good luck with the draft. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle "Religious Confucianism, formed by the religiousization of Confucianism during the Qing Dynasty, is also a branch of Religious Confucianism". That is saying that Religious Confucianism is a branch of Religious Confucianism. I see you are still working on this; carry on! 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I Wrote a Article About Sri lankan Film maker Indika Wicramarachchi and i upload to the Wikipedia. but nobody can search that Article by his name Indika Wicramarachchi. this is the link of my Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wicsakiwdss/sandbox Wicsakiwdss (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Wicsakiwdss, User:Wicsakiwdss/sandbox is not a Wikipedia article. It's a draft of an article that you have created in your user sandbox. As it's not an article, it's not indexed by search engines. In its current state, it is not acceptable as an article because it cites no references, and so does not establish that its subject is notable enough to warrant article status. Maproom (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I've been editing the page for Partial autocorrelation function on and off for a while and I think I've improved it enough to remove the "lacking inline citations" message at the top of the article and maybe promote it to a C-class article. However, I might be biased since I'm the one who worked on the article. Is there a place where I can "sanity-check" myself and ask a more experienced editor to look at the article and judge it? Thank you so much for your volunteer work! Moon motif (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Moon motif: If you can incorporate that NIST page as an inline citation, as well as find a citation for the definition, it's fine to remove the "lacking inline citations" message. It would be fine now, but if you're interested in further citation improvements, that's my suggestion. I made a small stylistic correction (Wikipedia doesn't use title case in headings; see MOS:HEADINGS). ~Anachronist (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Moon motif. I have been editing here for 13 years, and have upgraded articles from stub to start many, many times. Far too many articles are called "stubs" that are fairly informative and are really no longer stubs. The only ratings that require a consensus are Featured articles and Good articles. Any individual editor can upgrade (or downgrade) such sub GA articles, as long they are acting in good faith. The delineations between Start, C, and B are vague and highly subjective. I encourage you not to think too much about such fine distinctions. Focus, instead, on writing and expanding better articles that are more informative for our readers (and ourselves). That is our real purpose here. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses! Moon motif (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you with this, but I just can't find it. Can feature length films be a source. Also, I'm trying to create my user page just to let you know. It seems very hard. Someone told me to use an Adventure Game, but when I went there, there were so many games, and I couldn't find anything about plaing a game that it will help you build your page. and my subject has wriitten 10 books. Can I use sources in his books? MikiBishop (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC) MikiBishop (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@MikiBishop You can, for example, use a WP:RS documentary film as a source if it's relevant to a specific article, use Template:Cite AV media. See also MOS:PLOTSOURCE. To create your WP:USERPAGE, click the redlinked "MikiBishop" in your signature just above, type something, and publish. If you're trying to make a WP:BLP, it doesn't matter how many books your subject has written, you have to meet the demands of WP:N. You need WP:RS independent of your subject that writes about them in some detail, not just mention their name. More info on starting an article at WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you so much. yes, trying to make sure I have reliable sources. I've been reading those pages for three or four times each now. laugh. I'm really grateful. I've been working on this for days, and I'm still confused about exactly how to do things. I'll follow your advice and thank you again very much. MikiBishop (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I have a question. I’m new here at Wikipedia. How do I create an article. Do I do it via sandbox or where? If you could reply on my talk page, I can try it out there. Thank you Teahouse. Yours sincerely Germerican220 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Germerican220, Hi and welcome! Creating an acceptable WP-article without any previous WP-experience is hard, so it's recommended to get used to simpler editing first, and you need to learn how to use references correctly, this is essential, WP:TUTORIAL has a guide for that.

My personal method is to start the article via Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating_and_editing_drafts. Take your time to get it right, make sure WP:N is met (if you can't meet the demands there, your article will not be accepted), and when you're done you can submit it for review. Note that the "Publish" button here only means you are publishing/changing the draft as a draft, not an actual article, so don't be afraid to use it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Germerican220 (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Germerican220. There are a couple of ways to create a new article. Since you're a new user without yet having established a track record of creating acceptable articles, I suggest you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation just to familiarize yourself with the process. However, I first suggest that you take a look at this and this for some general guidance on what types of subjects tend to be considered OK to create articles about, and also this for some general guidance how articles should be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks man Germerican220 (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be evading a block here User:CLathrop202020. Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Have been able to edit articles previously to improve the service but now keeps saying user name is already in use and won't let me in. Have tried repeatedly to sign in to no avail. 69.118.145.247 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're having issues logging in, check out this guide on login issues. StartOkayStop (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That link goes to the wrong place when I use it. This one goes to the relevant page. However, being told the username already exists suggests you're trying to register a new account rather than log into an existing one, so are you simply following the wrong link? Neiltonks (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

HE keeps deleting my categories in stuff bc SeLF pROPelLeD gUNS aRE noT TanKS AND I AM SICK OF HIM. THATS MY ISSUE. Simohayhafan (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Simohayhafan, step away from Wikipedia and go have a cup of tea (or other beverage of choice), then discuss the issue on either their user talk page or the article page. Do not continue with your inappropriate edit summaries. Slywriter (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Simohayfan, please read about WP:Consensus. Wikipedia works by consensus, which sometimes involves compromise. Charging in with all guns blazing is not conducive to achieving consensus - irrespective of whether you are right or not. ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Simohayfan, I think it might look as if a number of people (including me) have piled on to you. I want to say that: I get that you are frustrated and angry, and I'm guessing that it feels as if you're not being heard. You feel strongly about something, and you can't see why other people don't agree. That's not a comfortable position to be in, and it's understandable that you get angry and a bit shouty. The trouble is, that makes it even harder for people to hear you, because they have to get past the wall of anger that you have built. I second the advice to step away for a bit, and give yourself a chance to calm down. If you allow yourself to really hear what people are saying back to you about the things that you feel strongly about, and show that you have heard them, there's a greater chance that they will be willing to listen to your point of view. That doesn't mean that you will necessarily get your way: as I said above, Wikipedia works by consensus, and there is often compromise required. But it will save you the pain of living in anger. ColinFine (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently had a Wikipedia page declined for myself and I would just like to know the basics of creating a page for myself. I suppose a template I could use would help me greatly.

I'm completely new to creating pages for Wikipedia so I can't come to grasp the concept of what's written in the instructions just yet. If you would like to know abit about myself then please just ask.

Thanks in advance

Paul Yorke Oimatrixio (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and many thanks for your edits! Presumably, a more experienced editor would inform you more, but I strongly advice against creating a WP page for yourself. That's considered as you having a Conflict of Interest. The guideline says thatyou are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, if you write a promo-like article, it would probably be deleted under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion ones under A7 or G11. So, I think other editors would probably also advice against creating an autobiography. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Oimatrixio. Start by reading WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and perhaps read it several times so that it really sinks in. Then read and study Wikipedia's Notability guideline for people. Ask yourself how you meet that standard, and explain it to us. Then, read and study Your first article to understand how great the challenge is before you. In theory, it is possible that someone could write an acceptable Wikipedia autobiography. Maybe a longtime Wikipedia editor who just won a Pulitzer Prize, for example. Such a long time editor would be happy to have someone else write that article, though. Well over 99% of such efforts end up failing. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! Oimatrixio (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

When people try to create an article about themselves, it is almost always the case that they have failed to understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not, and think that "having a page" is a way of promoting themselves - i.e., telling the world about themselves - like having a page on Facebook or LinkedIn. It is not: this is an encyclopaedia, and promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Polysaccharides. (Please don't edit an archive, but start a new section in the current Teahouse, linking to the original, as I have done here.)

You added the following to the thread today (I've copied your addition here)

@ColinFine Hello, I had covid so I wansnt near a computer.. here are the 3 sources you asked:

https://b.walla.co.il/item/1868975

https://www.ybook.co.il/book/7758/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A4%D7%A1-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA

https://www.maariv.co.il/culture/literature/Article-762856

His name in Hebrew is דניאל אדלסון

Is there anything else you need? Polysaccharides (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the first two do not have Significant coverage of Edelson: they might be useful for additional information, but I suspect that they would not contain anything not found in a fuller source. The third one might be - but it does not actually contain much about Edelson, being mostly about the book. You've stll got a way to go. ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what the official name is so I’m just saying page but on the michiya haruhata page I want to add a part about the j league and I’m not sure how to create it but I want it to work like the references page were you can collapse or expand it thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:TUTORIAL may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Michiya Haruhata It appears that you added content about his song being used by the J league (professional football in Japan). IS there still a question? David notMD (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No I have fixed it thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please help me find where I add and (hopefully not be deleted), a free encyclopedia. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Hoover whom is an author among many authors on Wikipedia. I am interested in adding a bibliography for business reason and information about my novels. JackieLynaugh (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@JackieLynaugh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Some recommended reading: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. People who try to make WP-articles about themselves almost always fail, because they do it wrong, and because most people are not WP:NOTABLE. If WP has an article about you, it will not be for business reasons (on purpose, anyway), and you will not have control of it's contents. If approved, it will be a summary of what WP:RS independent of you has said about you/your books. Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:GNG.

So: what are the 3-5 best sources you know that are at the same time reliably published, independent of you and about you in some detail? This excludes your websites, your publisher, blogs, wikis, online bookstores etc etc. Yolanda T. Marshall may be a helpful example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears you have published six (or more?) books. While laudable, to qualify for a Wikipedia article about you, there needs to be references to what people have written about you. A fast search on your name yielded your website and social media sites, but perhaps not enough about you. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Jackie JackieLynaugh (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Jackie JackieLynaugh (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi I’m trying to cite the recording industry association of Japan but it says I need to make it manually and I can’t figure that out so I little guide would be great Goldsoldier75 (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsolider75 Please see Referencing for Beginners which provides advice in this area. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What type of website of india should be added to make an article reliable??? My draft:nituparna was marked as containing unreliable source. What to do to make it reliable? Baruahranuj 13:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Baruah ranuj You cannot make a source reliable- that depends on its reputation and how it is viewed by the public. Please read this page about reliable sources for more information, but in short, a reliable source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- in other words, they don't make up stuff out of whole cloth, and they check for accuracy before publishing. For an example of a source that is considered to be not reliable, see WP:DAILYMAIL. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

To whoever is out there,

I recently joined Wikipedia, believing that it would be possible for me to contribute to articles and, if necessary, highlight errors in other peoples work.

As a big fan of the British actor, Peter Wyngarde, I attempted to correct a number of inaccuracies in his biography, but was immediately closed down by another Editor/Contributor working on that page (I have heard numerously about how jealously those involved with this particular biog have guarded it, and how they will quickly see off anyone who attempts to change or add to its content).

After pointing out several pieces of misinformation in the biog, I was referred to as a "Sockpuppet" by a regular Contributor calling his or herself, ' Theheartof '. Since this is a word I had never heard before, I was obliged to look up. I have no clue what this person was getting at, but by this point I was beginning to understand why there had been so many previous reports of people being made to feel uncomfortable or bullied around the Wyngarde biography pages.

To cap this all off, I was latterly propositioned by someone calling himself ' ColinProbert ' (In the United Kingdom, gay men often use the term "Are You Handy?" when attempting to importune other gay men in public lavatories. See under title, "An obituary reported that he lived partly on social security benefits" 21:16, 10 July 2022

I joined Wikipedia to contribute, not to be abused and propositioned! Those involved with this particular biography have an appalling reputation amongst fans of Peter Wyngarde which, as I've found to my cost, is well deserved. What, if anything, can be done about this?

Thanks. TheWoolpack (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

TheWoolpack Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Where I come from, "are you handy" simply means "are you available" or even "are you good with tools"(like a handyman). I highly doubt you were being propositioned. A core tenet of Wikipedia is assume good faith. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@331dot: The fact that this comment was the only edit coming out of the blue from a newly registered account, with "Handy" capitalized, suggests an attempt to annoy that stretches WP:AGF to the breaking point. I have reverted the edit as a personal attack. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I believe that I know of the person who posted that comment. He has, apparently, been trolling the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society for some years by posting this particular homophobic slogan on their Facebook page.

In 2018, when the actor passed away, this person wrote a supposed 'obituary' for one of the national daily newspapers in the UK, namely The Guardian, but was fired after over 8,000 members of the public, plus many members of the film and theatre community - including actors, writers and producers, complained about the venom contained in it. For years after, this character went to ground, but has recently resurfaced. The very fact that he is involved with that particular biography, and is posting stuff like this in an attempt to make people feel uncomfortable, is extremely troubling. It has certainly made me feel uncomfortable about using Wikipedia. TheWoolpack (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello TheWoolpack and welcome to the Teahouse! I am very sorry that you experienced anything that made you feel concerned or uncomfortable here. The user in question that wrote that in response to you has only had one edit and it was that response to you. I suspect they potentially know the meaning of what they are saying and it doesn't seem helpful. If you feel you are being targeted or if you feel your safety is at risk you may contact Trust and Safety and they may be able to help you further. One thing I would like to correct about your understanding is that Wikipedia is not a blog. This is an encyclopedia and we have articles on notable subjects. We welcome the good faith edits of contributors. Those contributions must be verified in reliable sources and included in the article in a neutral tone. You did exactly what you should have done by opening up a discussion on the articles talk page. Now there is nothing to do but wait for others to chime in but keep in mind that we are all volunteers and there is no rush to make changes to any article. --ARoseWolf 20:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

TheWoolpack,Please do no repeat your accusations on Wikipedia again. Whatever dislike you and the fan club have for the obituary, this is not the place to mention your suspicions of who the vandal was nor to discuss off-wiki trolling. Additionally, your response including grindr link is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I'd note for the rest of the community that a little googling shows a fan club determined to challenge reliable sources and Wikipedia's article on the subject is active. Whether there is merit to their claims, I have no idea but at least one member has been previously banned from Wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheWoolpack: I will also add that you started right out on Wikipedia on the wrong foot, by committing two offenses: First, you added editorial commentary or your own analysis in an article. That is forbidden (see WP:OR); such discussions always belong on the talk page. Second, you compounded the error by reasoning on on your own talk page that your commentary belongs in the article because ordinary readers wouldn't look at the talk page. That is irrelevant. The talk page is where discussions about improving the article take place. It doesn't belong in the article. I have removed the personal attack (which you interpreted as propositioning). As for the accusation of sockpuppetry (in the context of Wikipedia, a sockpuppet is another account created by someone who is blocked or banned for the purpose of evading the block or ban), that was probably uncalled for, and User:Theheartof should have opened an investigation at WP:SPI instead. However, such accusations are sometimes understandable when a brand-new editor raises prior issues that have already been dealt with repeatedly in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not entirely familiar with it's rules and regulations, and for that I apologise. I can assure you that nothing I've said or done has been out of malice, nor has it been because I have an agenda; I certainly don't have any direct affiliation with the Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society which appears to be the suggestion. I am, however, aware that the O.P.W.A.S. have challenged Wikipedia numerously over the course of many years concerning the misinformation posted in its Peter Wyngarde biog by publishing original, contradictory documentation on its own website which has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that W.P. are in error. It does go to show that just because something appears in print (in a tabloid newspaper for instance), doesn't automatically make it a "reliable source".

Given that the lady who runs the appreciation society was in a 30-year relationship with Wyngarde, I would expect her to be vastly more informed about the man than a random contributor to an online encyclopedia, and that instead of banning her, those involved with the Wyngarde biography would have served both W.P. and those that refer to it more adequately if they had reined in their controlling natures and sought to work with her instead of alienating her. Certainly a seriously damaging accusation that originated on Wikipedia back in 2010 without any kind of source (it was posted once, removed, and then reposted a couple of years later - again without any kind of provenance), and which has since taken on a life of its own courtesy of online bloggers and social media gossips, might have been nipped in the bud. It appears that those who so jealously guard this particular biog would rather cut off their respective noses to spite their face rather than consider for a moment that they might be wrong. That's just my opinion.

I have to say that the little experience I've had of Wikipedia could not be described as pleasant. What might have been a noble enterprise by Jimmy Wales in the beginning has become a bizarre and hostile place for newbies like myself, especially if one's area of interest happens to have been appropriated by the types that rule the Wyngarde biography with the proverbial iron rod. Unquestionably, when words such as "forbidden" and "offenses" (sic) are the kind of everyday terminology used on Wikipedia by 'admins' etc., the atmosphere feels unfriendly and even autocratic. TheWoolpack (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the lady that runs the appreciation society was in a 30-year relationship with Wyngarde is irrelevant to the policies of Wikipedia. Again, we do not have blogs here on Wikipedia. This is an online encyclopedia and we have articles. Though Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source we do have standards and policies which dictate that the subjects of our articles must receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Because of the libre mission of Wikipedia we do allow anyone to edit publicly and those edits are recorded in a history for each main space article or user space page. Even when something is reverted it is not lost but recorded in the history. The fact that articles are vandalized here on Wikipedia is a shame but is not unlike many things in life. Our volunteer editors and administrators attempt to catch all vandalism and deal with it swiftly. Some slips through and some may remain on lesser viewed articles for much longer than just a few hours or days. The nobility of Wikipedia is in its collaborative effort and ability to allow some nobody girl from Alaska the opportunity to find articles on the people her mother came from and a people that she was taken from as a child, her heritage. And then affords her the opportunity to go from that to begin editing and even creating articles on Women from that Indigenous Nation of People that didn't have articles and otherwise may have been forgotten. It allows people to come together from all walks of life, even those that disagree in principle, to work together on something that is bigger than us individually. Wikipedia will never be able to define me but it has added value to my life meeting such incredible people here. You look at the project and see something that started out noble but has degraded into something negative. I see a project that started noble and has continued that nobility even despite all the growing pains. Rather than complain about what you see wrong, try doing something about it. Either research and make edits yourself or go get something published in reliable sources yourself and maybe it will wind up here. I truly hope you do stick around and grow in your understanding of what Wikipedia is because its pretty phenomenal what is accomplished on a daily basis around here. --ARoseWolf 14:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

TheWoolpack, It was brought to my attention that I made a mistake. You were saying biog, short for biography, and not blog. When I went back to read in this format I clearly see it now. So I wanted to apologize for making that error. --ARoseWolf 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

There was no need to apologise, but thank you.

I am delighted that you have found such positivity in Wikipedia. Sadly, my experiences of the same has been the complete opposite. The few people I've encountered thus far I've found to be autocratic, possessive and rude. I realise now that there's no point in attempting to reason with the unreasonable, which is probably why so many victims of W.P. misinformation have set up channels on YouTube and other such platforms to counter it. I dare say that if you have never personally experienced the trauma of witnessing your name and reputation destroyed by a faceless Wikipedia 'Contributor' who resists all attempts to set the record straight, we have no right to comment. TheWoolpack (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have nothing to add to this project other than bashing Wikipedia with vague claims and attacks, the log out button is here. Continuing your ranting will just lead to a block for wasting the valuable time of other volunteer editors. Frankly you have been rude from the start and yet want to complain that others treated you poorly when you have shown zero respect for other editors. WP:CIVILITY is not optional.

Now, if you would like to be productive, then here's the secret, don't be rude and do provide sources. Discuss sourcing and content on the article talk page without mentioning other editors or assuming their motives. verifiable content in reliable sources is key Slywriter (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi it’s me again. How do I change font and colour of my name??? Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Captain Kathryn, and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:Signatures.

Hint: often, you can find out information about a topic in editing Wikipedia by searching for it with "WP:" (or "Wikipedia:" - it's the same thing) on the front of it. ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

(For future reference: Captain Kathryn is fine but I prefer Captain Janeway,No offence) Hi thanks for replying.

i will look at Wikipedia:Signatures thank you for the advice. If you want to stay in contact with me just write to me over my talk page! Yours sincerely Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to get two links for this article Draft:Magazine féminin refilled as these are book articles. What am I doing wrong? Dwanyewest (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I am currently looking at your Draft, but I don’t see any links refilled as books. Can you be more specific? Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Refill doesn't work well on Google Books links since the URL is to a Google page, not the underlying page for the book. I've expanded one reference using the isbn but kept your Google book link. You can look at the draft now to see what I did. You also need to use a named reference, since current references 1 and 3 are to the same book. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, could I use the same strong password for the user login to create new user? Should I do it? Or no? 100.11.127.115 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Normally if you have an account with that password Wikipedia will not accept it due to the message box saying This password is Already in use. Please use another., or something similar. Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The in italic is the message. Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I’ll think of passwords I’ll use. Anyways does my Wikipedia password always not be common and must be strong with at least 15 characters strong and with numbers, uppercase letters, lowercase letters, symbols, and other characters, and I should avoid personal information? Do I always have to comply with [betawiki.net/wiki/Special:PasswordPolicies this]?100.11.127.115 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The password requirements are outlined here. As far as I know, there's nothing preventing you from using the same password for multiple accounts, but there are many restrictions against operating multiple accounts on Wikipedia, and using the same password in multiple places is less secure than using unique passwords. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

”Never write your passwords down, put your password in your spreadsheets, or writing on your phone.”

Is it true? 100.11.127.115 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That is good general advice for password security, yes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Does my password could be stored in cloud, like Samsung Cloud, iCloud, Dropbox, or Google Drive if I broke this password policy? 100.11.127.115 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't detect where you've stored your password; use the most secure method available to you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

“Never let any of your browsers save your Wikipedia password.”

Is it a good idea? 100.11.127.115 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend asking detailed questions about account security on the talk page. The Teahouse is for helping newcomers navigate using Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd advise you against posting on Wikipedia where you keep your passwords. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I write down my password in my phone or computer in case if I forget it? 100.11.127.115 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a question about using Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Which help page is right me for discussing about this topic? Please remind me! :) 100.11.127.115 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You can discuss the rules about account security on Wikipedia on this page. Off-topic questions about account security in general won't be answered there - you might try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing for that. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks! 100.11.127.115 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

i Wrote A post About Sri Lankan Film Maker Indika Wicramarachchi in my Sanbox Page but i can't Find More option to Move my post Because It Blocked What I can Do For This ? this is my post link User:Wicsakiwdss/sandbox Wicsakiwdss (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You cannot move it, as you are a new user and it needs to go through WP:AFC. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Wicsakiwdss You were already told here at the Teahouse that such an article is never going to be acceptable for Wikipedia since it is a biography of a living person yet it has no sources. All Wikipedia articles must have sources and there are strict rules for biographies in particular. You uploaded a picture of Wicramarachchi which you stated was your own work (i.e. taken with your own camera). If you know this person, please read WP:COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Please understand, Wicksakiwdss, that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Your current draft has not a single citation to a published source, let alone an independent one. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I made a screenshot of 4 examples from my recent contributions that I'd like to understand. What do these pieces of information mean:

o diff | hist?

o the red and green figures with preceding - and + symbols?

o the fact that some digits are boldfaced and others aren't?

o and also the letter m on the line with the -8?

Augnablik (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik:

• The link "diff" is a diff link, which will list the changes made during the edit listed at Special:Contributions
• similarly, the "hist" link will lead to the page history of the article that was edited.
• the red or green number is the amount of bytes (which are roughly, but not exactly, characters) which were added or removed by the edit. If the edit added some text, it will be green, if the edit removed bytes, it will be red, and if the number of bytes the page had was unchanged, it will be gray. This number will display in bold if more than 500 bytes were added or removed.
• m means that the user tagged the minor edit checkbox, which can be checked to indicate a very minor change that doesn't require review, like fixing spelling mistakes. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Victor. Augnablik (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I got a little curious as I thought about all this. Are we editors being watched —assumption being that it's in a benign way — to see how many bytes we add or subtract over a period of time, and how much we contribute to Wikipedia tasks? Perhaps also how many missteps we make? Augnablik (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. I use it to figure out if large amounts of content are being added or removed, as they can be indicative of problematic edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I was recently given a talk page message on discretionary sanctions (link). I have never gotten this message before, am I in trouble? Dinoz1 (chat?) 18:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Dinoz1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. No, you are not necessarily in trouble. As the message states, "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." 331dot (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! Dinoz1 (chat?) 18:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dinoz1. You commented on your talk page that you "feel scared this is kind of like a block". It is not anything like a block or a sanction. It is just a standard notice to inform you that extra care is required when editing biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Dinoz1 (chat?) 18:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have just finished submitting a draft entitled Ken Williams(songwriter) for review and as part of this process, I am required to move it to Draft Space. Howwver, when I do, I get the following message: The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

What should I do? Andymcteddybear (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Andymcteddybear Hello. Who said you have to move it to Draft space? You submitted it for review and it is pending. There is a blank draft at Draft:Ken Williams (songwriter); did you have any knowledge of that? You could communicate with the creator of that blank draft to see if collaboration is possible. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

After submitting the draft for review, a new button labelled "Move to Draft" came up. I thought I had to move the article to Draft Space to enable the reviewer to see it. Obviously this is not the case.

I have been checking almost every hour since last week ensure no one was working on an article similar to the one I was working on. The last time I checked was today at 18.50. I will contact the creater of the blank draft to see whether ww can collaborate. Many thanks. Andymcteddybear (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Check whether it is orphan now Lurinjyoti Gogoi I have moved the page to another name to link with other page . the new name is often used by other pages Baruahranuj 16:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And Praxidicae has concluded that Gogoi does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and has turned the page into a redirect to Assam Jatiya Parishad, which seems a good call to me. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not entirely sure AJP is notable either. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Offering Greetings to so-called scholarly administrators/experienced editors like you, I stopped writing articles on Wikipedia. I will come back when I get back to a healthy writing environment on Wikipedia. Suppose I agree that Lurin Jyoti Gogoi's article does not follow notability , but you said that I doubt whether the article AJP follows criteria of notability. If such rules are enforced , about 50% of articles related to Assam will probably disappear from Wikipedia. Consider the matter.Anyway , you keep doing your job. But I didn't get a healthy writing environment on English Wikipedia. Don't think I'm saying this because the draft was cancelled. That's not the case. I didn't even find a way to correct the mistake here. Baruahranuj 18:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Baruah Ranuj. I'm sorry you feel that way. You're not alone: many new editors get frustrated and unhappy with their experience. In my experience, they are often people who rush into trying to create new articles before they have taken the time to learn how Wikipedia works. It's a bit like somebody starting to learn the violin, and trying to perform a concerto after a few days, and then feeling hurt and upset because the critics are uncomplementary.

I'm sure that Assam is underrepresented in English Wikipedia, as are many other regions round the world. It's great that you want to improve that; but we will not lower our standards to increase coverage. I notice that you have not yet put the template {{User WP Assam}} on your User page, which would add you to Category:WikiProject Assam members. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Mods,

Our Domain (www.uniacco.com) is blacklisted from wikipedia can you please share the form to raise a ticket for domain unban.

We didn't perform unethical/black hat technique we didn't get a mail why our domain is blacklisted can you please reply ASAP. Altamash.mapari (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Altamash.mapari, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for directions. At a glance, any adding of your website to any WP-article would likely be seen as Wikipedia:Spam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Furthering the comments of Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it is highly unlikely that the website would be removed from the blacklist. It was added in 2020 following several instances of spam. Additionally, the website unicreds.com has been added to the blacklist after your recent spamming, too. Anarchyte (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, cue song by Monthy Python. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Altamash.mapari: Not only that, but speaking as someone who occasionally participates on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist responding to delisting requests, we absolutely never remove a domain from the blacklist at the request of the site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. Our standard answer is that if a trusted, high-volume editor makes the request, we'll consider it seriously. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have created a sandbox edit of what I hope will be a wikipedia page for the Grand Lodge of Oregon. The Grand Lodge of Oregon has no entries in Wikipedia. I tried previously and didn't do all that well. Trying again.

What is the next steps to get what I have in sandbox to wikipedia? thank you. jje JohnnyJEdwards (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello JohnnyJEdwards, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your sandbox, so that you can submit it for review when it is ready (which it is nowhere near yet). It looks as if you have made the classic beginner's mistake of writing what you know. With respect, Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows). Wikipedia is only interested in what is found in reliable published sources, and writing an article - any article - begins with finding such sources, and then goes on to summarise what these sources say. Please have a look at your first article, and particularly at WP:NORG. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

JohnnyJEdwards You might want to look at the page WP:FM, which among other things lists all Freemason-related articles, with ratings. You might like to model your draft on one of the higher-rated ones. All the ones on Grand Lodges can also be found in Category:Grand Lodges. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JohnnyJEdwards. Please read WP:BRANCH which saysAs a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. I searched for sources about the Grand Lodge of Oregon but did not find anything independent of that Masonic group. Books they publish about themselves are not acceptable for establishing notabiliy. So, exceptions to that rule need high quality independent sourcing. Cullen328 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I note that you have recently created in Mainspace the article Grand lodge of oregon. That's a really bad idea given what Cullen328 said: the article in its current state goes nowhere near establishing notability. It is likely to be removed by the New Pages Patrol. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What I do not understand is many other organizations of Grand Lodges in America have a wikipedia page. I have all the sources known to exist as the person in charge of our museum and history. How do I make this notable like other pages? JohnnyJEdwards (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

JohnnyJEdwards, Colin, Michael and Cullen have all given you tools to be successful at writing an article and adhering to Wikipedia policy in the process. You have already been told that what you personally know about this organization, no matter how accurate it may be, is not acceptable for verification of notability in order to create an article here. I mean this with the upmost respect for you and your personal knowledge but that is what Wikipedia calls orginal research. Only high quality independent reliable sources, meaning having no association with the organization, may be used to determine notability. --ARoseWolf 18:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of those other articles may be about lodges which happen to have been written about by independent sources, and so meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Others of them have probably been around a long time, before we enforced our standards, and would have been deleted if anybody had looked critically at them. See OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

As for "How do I make this notable" - the only way is by finding suitable independent sources. See WP:AMOUNT.

Please note as well that as librarian and museum archivist for the Lodge, you have a sizeable conflict of interest, and may also count as a Paid editor: if you do, declaration of that status is mandatory. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

please review my draft. It's pending for many days . Draft: Nituparna Baruahranuj 12:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baruah ranuj, As stated in the template on top of the draft, it can take up to four months for the article to be reviewed. Your latest submission was today itself, so kindly wait till it is picked up. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you only re-submitted the draft today. It had previously been declined on 25 June, so that would be one reason for reviewers to be reluctant to take it up again unless it has been substantially improved and the comment left by the previous reviewer fully addressed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Nituparna Rajbongshi declined again. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Who is user @80.1.188.122? Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It's an IP, no one is going to connect it to any account. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

CKJ - who kept changing signature - is indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This question is not just for me but also for other new/old(rusty(No offence)) Wiki users

Can you create your own project? First Officer Commander Chakotay (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes see Wikipedia:WikiProject. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User is indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I have multiple accounts but idk how to delete them! Helppppppp!!!!!!!!!! Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

U.S.S.VOYAGERNCC-1701 Hello. It is not possible to delete an account; just stop using and abandon your other accounts. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks man. I was just confused. Captain Kathryn Janeway (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Accounts cannot be deleted since the edits made have to be attributed to their creators for copyright reasons. It is not forbidden to have multiple accounts provided you only use them for valid reasons and mention on each account's User Page that other accounts exist. You can of course simply stop using some of them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

OP determined to be a sock. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Er, well, that seems to be the point the OP is making. The OP even admits to having multiple accounts, and doesn't want them anymore. If the current account is the one he wants to stick to, then blocking it doesn't do any good. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist, their other accounts were... not in good standing. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Recently I've been working on Draft:Daliwonga and it was denied the reason being I didn't provide reliable sources but somehow I feel the sources I provided are reliable and notable, I'm now stuck as I don't know what to do to improve the article, even though I don't know what to do I wish to keep on working on the article.Can you guys suggest me what to do in a situation like this and help improve my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emkay2004 (talk • contribs)

Emkay2004 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask you to consider that the reviewers who reviewed your draft are likely more experienced and knowledgable than you, so they may know what they are talking about. I will say that most likely the problem is not the sources themselves, but their content. What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

331dot the references I added are from the sources mentioned on South Africa reliable sources that's what makes me feel they are reliable--Emkay2004 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emkay2004 (talk • contribs)

Emkay2004 As I said, I suspect that it is the content of the sources that is the problem, not so much the sources themselves. What are your three best sources in the draft? If you point those out, I can look at them to see what the problem might be. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

331dot thank you for your time and concern on my issue but I really can't say that this are my 3 best sources on my ref list because I don't really know which are the best and which are not.There is also a new comment on my draft which I think can help me solve my problem.Emkay2004 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I must say the draft comes across as somewhat promotional and would need to have some parts rewritten or removed. Editorial commentary like "seems to be performing well" absolutely isn't acceptable for publication. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In "Further reading" under Emancipation Proclamation, one book is listed as follows:

• Foner, Eric. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (W. W. Norton, 2010)

I want to link Eric Foner to his Wikipedia article, but I don't know how to do so with a wikicite reference. I also don't know what a wikicite reference is, or why this book alone, of all those listed under "Further reading," uses this format. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC) (You will have to click "Edit source" to see the wikicite reference.) Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC) I could redo the book listing without the wikicite reference, but I first want to find out whether there is some reason for it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: A common reason for things like this is that the person who added that was well intentioned but did not know how to use the citation templates. Or it could be laziness. In any case, it's good to make them consistent, so if you want to, go right ahead. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; I've listed the book without a template, using double brackets to link Foner to his Wikipedia page. This is always how I add books, even if other books use the template that requires using author-link= to link an author's name. I don't see a need for consistency, because it appears consistent to readers; it is inconsistent only when an editor is in "Edit source." And I don't see what purpose the template serves. Often it forces punctuation on you that you don't want; sometimes it results in a comma and a period side by side and I can't get rid of one of them. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I use templates precisely so that I don't have to worry about the formatting, and because the template reminds me of the fields that are required (and those that are optional). But it's not required. ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: The reason we use templates is for consistent formatting. There are many ways to cite something, and it's stylistically bad to introduce multiple ways in the same article. I recommend you stick to the templates already being used in the article. If you object to the punctuation in a template, then you are free to propose changes on the template talk page. Changing a template is a serious thing, because it changes the appearance of citations in thousands, if not millions, of articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I don't see that inconsistent use of templates makes a difference to style. Take a look at "Further reading" under Abraham Lincoln and slavery. The first four books listed -- by Belz, Burlingame, Burton, and Carwardine -- all have the same style: last name of author, first name of author, year in parentheses, title in italics, publisher. Yet Belz and Burton use a template, while Burlingame and Carwardine do not. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering why I was blocked from editing from my T-Mobile address. I'm using my computer now, and made an account to see if I was blocked here too--I wasn't. I accidentally pressed edit. I actually have no intention of editing anything and will probably cancel my account; I was just wondering why I wouldn't be able to edit if I wanted to. I thought it was strange, because before today, I never had a Wikipedia account and never edited anything in my life. What's the deal? Jecdymphna9 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jecdymphna9: Some IP addresses are blocked because they have been used to disrupt Wikipedia, and T-Mobile happened to assign you one of those addresses. If you know what the IP address is, I can investigate. On the other hand, we get a lot of disruption from mobile addresses, so I'm not particularly surprised you've had this experience. It has happened to me also on my phone (I use the Wikipedia app but I don't log in from it).

If you get a reputation for being an experienced and trusted editor, you can ask for an IP block exemption so that you can edit while logged in even if you're on a blocked IP address, but that user right isn't granted to new editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This is relevant. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jecdymphna9 See Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users. T-Mobile mixes all its mobile internet traffic together then sends it through the same server. This means it is basically impossible for wikipedia admins to just block vandals using T-Mobile connections without also blocking everyone else on their network. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Are wiki users allowed to chat with each other about nothing in particular(No offence, but I’m rusty on the guidelines)? First Officer Commander Chakotay (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@U.S.S.VOYAGERNCC-1701, conversations on Wikipedia should be about improving Wikipedia. If you want to chat on tangentially related topics, you can try WP:DISCORD or WP:IRC, but even there, off-topic chatter is kept to a minimum. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what 199.208.172.35 said. Whilst it is important to stay on-topic, there are occasional times when a tangential discussion can arise whilst engaging in Wikipedia activity. These are OK so long as they're within reason and part of broader work towards improving the encyclopaedia.

Thus, when I interact with a keen user I am mentoring under the Adoption scheme, there will be times I stray into general chat about shared experiences. But if you were 'out-of-the-blue' suddenly to drop by someone's talk page and ask about what they thought of, say The Boys on Amazon Prime (because you'd happen to seen that they had edited that page and wanted to talk about the series), then you'd swiftly be told that this kind of conversation wasn't appropriate here. Hope that makes sense.

BTW: It is very confusing if your signature name does not match your username. It would help if you would fix that. Please also read WP:NOTHERE because I sense you are here to mess about, rather than to build an encyclopaedia. If that is the case, I'm afraid you won't last long and could find yourself blocked. So stick to the purposes of adding to the encyclopaedia, please, and you'll get along fine. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@U.S.S.VOYAGERNCC-1701 Fixing failed ping. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? First Officer Commander Chakotay (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect,Which failed ping are you fixing First Officer Commander Chakotay (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@U.S.S.VOYAGERNCC-1701, Nick Moyes was fixing their own failed ping - as in, they meant to ping you when replying, but forgot to do it, so pinged you instead in a follow-up post. See WP:PING for more info. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah sorry Nick Moyes First Officer Commander Chakotay (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User is indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this was inevitable. We try to assume good faith here, but behind the scenes it's often pretty obvious when someone is not who they purport to be and are avoiding an earlier block. These things tend to become apparent sooner or later. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have an editor who is editing a draft article that I created, deleting my sources for notablity, and using WP:BLP as a cover. Neither are the case. My understanding is that Drafts are supposed to be a place where you can edit an article without edit warring. Can i get a clarification on the rules? 666hopedieslast (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Alina Lipp. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

666hopedieslast WP:BLP applies to all pages. Your claims must be well sourced. Removing BLP violations is an exception to the edit warring policy. I suggest that you stop and discuss your concerns. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@666hopedieslast WP:BLP applies to all pages on wikipedia, this is clearly spelled out in the very first sentence of that policy. Removing BLP violations is also exempt from edit warring restrictions, per WP:3RRNO point 7. When someone removes content from a page due to BLP issues raising legitamate concernas about the quality of sources used then you go to the talk page and discuss the issue. Repeatedly baselessly accusing other editors of bad faith [6] and calling them a bully/harrasser [7] [8] [9] is not a remotely appropriate way of dealing with this and is just going to result in you being blocked. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The messages you left on their talk page here are also way out of line and demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of several key policies. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to donate to wikipedia. The problem is that I don't have any dollars. What I DO have, however, is, among things, bitcoin. How, if at all, can I donate to wikipedia some? 89.139.154.144 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to donate but crypto is not one of them. You would need to convert your bitcoin into dollars first. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please read this article: 'Extremely risky’ and ‘inherently predatory': Wikipedia organization decides to stop accepting crypto donations. Just convert your cryptocurrency to hard currency and make your donation. Many major currencies are accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

See also Meta:Requests for comment/Stop accepting cryptocurrency donations for the discussion that lead to the removal of cryptocurrency donations. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

How do I add one? Brian1226 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userboxes — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 01:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia spelled it wrong when I submitted it; correctly spelled it is ALL lower case like this "ever.thus" Wikipedia made the first letter a capital "E" that is wrong there are no capital letters in my username how do I fix this spelling error? Ever.thus (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't. All usernames (and page titles) start with uppercase letters due to technical limitations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ever.thus hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately it is a technical limitation of Wikipedia that all usernames must start with an uppercase letter, so it's not possible to change it. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That said, you can edit your signature in preferences to have it display in lowercase, and add {{lowercase title}} to your user and user talk page to force those to display in lowercase. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Signature" field is at Special:Preferences. Don't make a checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" if you just want the signature to say ever.thus instead of Ever.thus. Your user and talk pages are User:Ever.thus and User talk:Ever.thus. They don't currently exist but you can create them with the "Publish page" button. You can type ever.thus when you log in but your real username cannot start with a lowercase letter. Your signature and user pages are the only places you can change the display. Your post said "ever. thus" with a space (the space was removed after this post). Spaces are allowed in usernames. You didn't enter a space when you created the account. See Wikipedia:Changing username if you want a space. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

considering the kind help I received as a true novice on Wikipedia, my most intelligent action (imho) is to capitalize BOTH Ever and Thus; the help I need now is how do I change my username to: "Ever.Thus" with NO space after the period? Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ever.thus (talk • contribs)

@Ever.thus: See Wikipedia:Changing username. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi I would like to create a page of information for my late father and myself. JohnneWAI (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@JohnneWAI: Welcome to the Teahouse. Newcomers are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves, as the resultant articles are virtually always done poorly. It's also not a memorial. You would be better served creating a website or going on social media. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL may be applicable.

However, if you really believe you and your father meet the inclusion criteria (see Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview) then go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@JohnneWAI Also, an article is generally about one subject, not two. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add a picture of Michiya haruhata is his page has none but I do not know how but I assume there is an existing guide ThanksGoldsoldier75 (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsoldier75 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on uploading images can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. Note that you cannot just take any random picture you find and upload it. It's much easier if you have taken the image yourself with your own camera. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Getty images a okay place to get photos from Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No, but Wikimedia Commons is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And the risk of sounding rude why is Getty images not allowed Is it a copyright problem? Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they make money by selling the use of pics for specific purposes. If this is about a living person, WP has basically 2 ways to "get" a pic: a fan takes a pic at a consert or similar and uploads it to Commons themselves, or, Michiya haruhata takes a selfie and ditto. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I upload pictures from someone’s Twitter like Michiya haruhata’s Twitter.

Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsoldier75, photos uploaded to Twitter are usually copyrighted; unless the account holder specifically states that they took the picture and are releasing it under a free license, we can't use it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks so is my best bet to find like a fan cam and take a picture from that or do I have to take the picture my self? Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi I noticed on the anneboyisa album article (might be incorrect name but it’s Anne Curtis’s album) that the official cover is used can I do that for the michiya haruhata page ThanksGoldsoldier75 (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsoldier75, album covers are also (usually) copyrighted. Under the non-free content policy (WP:FAIRUSE) we can get away with using the image in an article on the album; very, very rarely it might be usable in a different article under the non-free criteria, but 99% of the time, it couldn't be used in an article about the singer. So: no. As far as a fan cam video - if the person taking the video releases it under a free license, then you could take a screenshot from it. Otherwise: also no. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If they put it on say YouTube or something like that would that be a free license Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsoldier75, no, it is not. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Pretty much everything you see on YT, Twitter, FB, Instagram etc etc is copyrighted. However, YT allows copyright owners to add a freer license, which can make it useful for WP/Commons use. [10] is an example, click "more" under the video to see the license. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So on the tube page which I added some references to it has two of the same references in Different places which are both needed and they both have different numbers but on the michiya haruhata page and I assume a lot if other ones two of the same references used in different places have the same number listed and I would like to know how I can do that so I. Can apply it to the tube page and many other pages thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Goldsoldier75- please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations for the basic explanation, and the paragraphs below that for more complex options - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're editing with Viusual Editor, you can click the 'Cite' button and look for the 'Reuse' tab. Then jus scroll down to select the one you want to use again. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey All,

I recently joined the wiki and while hopping over wiki i stumbled upon this page: Draft:Loco (live streaming app)

I am confident that This is a subject worthy of Wikipedia Article.

However My lack of experience is allowing me to write it in a neutral way. I need assistance and guidance here... PDWrites (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

PDWrites When you feel that the draft is sufficiently improved, submit it to AfC again rather than moving it to main space without a review (as you did on 12 July). I do see that on your Talk page you declared that you are not paid nor have a conflict-of-interest, but do not delete the template, as that applies to the original draft creator and at least one of the subsequent editors. David notMD (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Cool, Thanks!

I'll try improving the content! PDWrites (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there an way to see how many pages are in a parent category and all of its subcategories? Slywriter (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter I think you can do this using the "what links here" menu option, then use the "External Tools / Linkcount" option. So, for Category:Carboxylic acids the page itself says it has 20 subcategories and 389 individual pages in the category. Using the Linkcount tool says there are 409 direct links, which seems correct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A table in [11] has two redundant and incorrect rows:

| August 4, 1961 ||Trump Donald ||New York||New York||(45th) January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021

| August 4, 1961 ||Biden Joe ||Scranton||Pennsylvania||(46th) January 20, 2021 – Present

I would like to delete the rows but cannot find how to do it properly.  Please tell me how to do it.  Thanks. Hunzu (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hunzu: I've removed the rows with this edit. It looks as though the IP who added them (yesterday) self-reverted, but someone came along and mistakenly undid their reversion. Deor (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am in need of help on how to move pages as I don't think I have access to do something like this just yet. Unitedwriter (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Unitedwriter, I'm assuming you want to publish Draft:Marta Alemany to the mainspace. I've added a submission box at the top of the article, press it and a reviewer will look at it and decide to accept the draft or give additional feedback. Please note that the draft is unlikely to be published at its current state due to a lack of references, please see our notability guidelines, for an article to be published, it generally needs multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage. Justiyaya 17:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Dootie7/sandbox
I am just getting started on this page and it really did not help for you to reject it. That is just not helpful. I submitted the page for review and suggestions. I know nothing about your formatting and using these templates. It would have been much more helpful for you to guide me in the right direction for perfecting the page. Your reference formatting is strange to me from what I see on other Wikipedia pages and is not commonly used. I need guidance in this. Please take a look. While you indicated that I had no references, I in fact listed them as publications with some hyperlinked. I have now changed it to references, but I think I have to hyperlink "References" ?? Thanks for your constructive and positive feedback. Dootie7 (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dootie7: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see Your first article for more information. We strongly suggest newcomers work on existing articles instead of creating a new one, as that is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Please also see Easy referencing for beginners, as articles must have in-line citations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, a Wikipedia article should not only have in-line citations, it should be based on them. I see that User:Dootie7/sandbox links to two obituaries in very reliable newspapers. I suggest, Dootie7, that you scrap what you have written, find another good source or two, and rewrite your proposed article basing it entirely on what your sources say, citing them as you go. If you want other editors to help you, you could move it to draft space (or ask for someone here to do it for you), where they'll feel free to edit it. Maproom (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur with this excellent advice, I moved it to draft and removed some of the weird formatting but it really needs WP:TNT and starting again referring only to the reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Dootie7 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I will be adding other categories. Please let me know how to add them. I will be adding the following categories to discuss highlights of the theoretical notions from Haskins' work, writings and educational policy implementation. The reason he was featured in the Washingron Post and New York Times is because he was a well-known practitioner, scholar and professor and worked on nearly every level of society local, state and national levels and at all levels of education and in communities. We are publishing a book on his work and contributions and did not want to include this on Wikipedia. However, I can add a brief synopsis of some of his concepts and research findings.

Please let me know how to add additional sections and thank you for editing the draft and adding those. The additional categories to be added include: Concept of Education; On the Art of Teaching and the Role of Teachers; The Learner and Learning; and The Importance of the School-Community Linkage. Thanks again. Dootie7 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see my recent reply to Theroadislong (talk). I am looking at Derrick Bell on Wikipedia. He is one of our professors as well. I am trying to do the same for Kenneth W. Haskins. I will try to follow this model since it was accepted. Thanks again. Dootie7 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

[Edit Conflicts] Please note, Dootie7, that your draft has not been Rejected, it has merely been Declined – the difference is important.

"Rejected" would mean roughly "this subject has no obvious chance of being eligible for a Wikipedia article any time soon. It's not worth your spending any more time and effort on it." The problem would be inherent to the subject, not a fault with the draft itself.

"Declined", however, means roughly "this subject is (probably) eligible for an article, but the draft has not yet succeeded in demonstrating this acceptably, and/or has other obvious, but correctable, defects. Try to improve it in the following areas, and when you have resubmit it." There is no rush; Wikipedia has no deadlines.

From the comments experienced reviewer Theroadislong has made, your main problems seem to be identifying acceptable Reliable sources, and learning how to Cite them in the text. Please read those links, as well as the several that Theroadislong provided precisely in order to "guide you in the right direction for perfecting the page." (Though no Wikipedia article is ever perfect, or completed.)

Remember that what the subject has published, or what friends, colleagues and employing organisations have said/written about him, may or may not be worth including in the article, but is of no value in establishing his "Notability" in the sense Wikipedia employs the term. Only what disinterested observers have had published in well-edited reliable sources can do that, and such material, summarised and reworded, should be the basis of most of the text: see particularly Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.177 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. All references included in the article are reliable and documented sources from peer reviewed journals. The problem is that we in academia write very differently from what you include in Wikipedia. You can clearly see that all the sources listed under references are reliable sources. As for parenthetical inclusion, I can go back and do that. I am not writing an article, I am highlighting the accomplishments of a distinguished educator. I see another of our professors listed in Wikipedia here: Derrick Bell. This is not an article either, but a bio written posthumously. I am trying to do the same with recognizing Ken Haskins. Should I follow this format that was used for Derrick Bell? I am a distinguished professor trying to understand your template and your system. Will continue to work on this. Thanks for your response. Dootie7 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dootie7: Looking over your draft, you seem to be a bit confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. The purpose isn't to write profiles of people. It isn't a place to host a CV. And it certainly isn't for memorializing a subject. We have articles about topics that are relevant to an encyclopedia for the purpose of documenting and advancing human knowledge, and those topics must meet certain basic criteria for inclusion, namely significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. All three of those criteria must be met simultaneously by multiple sources, to establish notability. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for a brief overview explaining this.

The sources in your draft are primarily written by Haskins, therefore they are not independent, and do nothing whatsoever to establish notability of the subject. All they do is verify existence, but merely existing isn't a qualification for having an article. Other sources appear to be university newspapers, which aren't generally regarded as reliable, and are also not independent if Haskins is affiliated with the same university.

Obituaries in the New York Times and Washington Post are excellent sources, and much as I disagree that a person is automatically notable if that's the only significant coverage he has had (if he didn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria while alive, he shouldn't suddenly become notable for two national newpapers reporting on his death), they are nevertheless sufficient for meeting notability requirements. We also have additional notability guidelines WP:NPROF, and if Haskins met any of those, then they should be included an expanded on. The rest of the sources, however, can be removed.

Also note that usually other articles on Wikipedia are not a good gauge for guidance, although Derrick Bell does happen to be a decent example to follow. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dootie7. It would be useful for you to read Wikipedia:Expert editors. As for Derrick Bell, that is a fairly well written and well referenced encyclopedia article. with 47 inline references. At this point, your draft is nowhere near close, because vast swathes are unreferenced. You do not have a single inline reference. How is the reader supposed to know that all that information is accurate? Verifiability is a core content policy. Please read the notability guideline for academics. Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is very helpful. Will review all suggested readings. Dootie7 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm uncertain if this is a new basic function or if it's a javascript page, but I currently have a dropdown next to my search bar that I can change between Article, Article talk, wikipedia, wikipedia talk, etc. This frequently makes it so if I do a search and I'm trying to type Template: Infobox Ship for example, I end up on a page with nothing because that bar is set to "article:". If this is a new feature, does anyone know how to turn this off? If it's Javascript, can anyone remind me how I can edit that? It's been a long time. Thanks!  Ryan Vesey 15:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is resolved. I did determine that it was javascript at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/SearchNamespace.js. Ryan Vesey 18:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it appropriate and corresponding to Wikipedia's value to conduct such a mass disappearance of knowledge using just a mere mention of a policy's name?

I am referring to Diff I, Diff II, just to list a few here.

In contrast, I am impressed by Jimbo's recent edit. Look, he immediately started a 1,210-length thread on the talk page after he disappeared 908-length article's content.

American value (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you read the edit summaries, you will see that those edits are backed by policy, specifically WP:OR for Horse Eye's Back edit and WP:RS for Jimbo Wales's edit. Polyamorph (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

To me, Horse's mass disappearce is an example of WP:JUSTALINK:"such actions may sometimes be confusing to the readers, especially when linking to large and complex pages. It may be unclear which of the many points in that page one intends to refer to. Such behavior may also be interpreted as equivalent of saying "talk to the hand", i.e. uncivil.". If it is acceptable, then the burden to demonstrate the legitimacy of deletion will lie with the editors who uphold Wikipedia's fundamental guiding principle "In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of the projects as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve and make available the material in the projects in perpetuity, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission." but WP:POLCON: "If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." So, I stand with Wikimedia's very founding principle. --American value (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist explained it better below. As Horse Eye's Back explains, the removal is also fully justified by WP:Sock. Polyamorph (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I will also note that the removal could have been justified by Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry as well given that it was all the creation of socks of the banned User:It's gonna be awesome. I'm sure thats just a coincidence, right @American value:? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

American value you have yet to make any contribution to mainspace - seems a bit early for you to be getting involved in content disputes. Have you edited wikipedia previously? Polyamorph (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to make any contribution to mainspace but was denied by some mysterious filters. I don't know why. But, for now, I think we should focus on discussing if Horse's mass disappearance is justifiable because that's the reason why I am here to survey the opinions of Wikipedians. -- American value (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Of the diffs you linked, the first one is a shortening of the lead. The lead should simply summarize what is in the rest of the article, and should not include extra details that don't exist in the article body, so the removal was justified; see WP:LEAD. The second diff cites WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations, which are prohibited from being in articles. If you disagree with the reasoning after you read those policy links, take it up on the talk page, because the WP:BURDEN for inclusion is on the person who wants to add material, not on the one who removes it to comply with content guidelines and policies. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are fully justified. You can explain your difficulty editing here. Polyamorph (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

American value, the lead of an article should summarise the content of the rest of the article. My impression is that the disputed content therefore does not belong in the lead, and was rightly removed. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I note that user "American value" is now indef blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. They have filter hits, so I think they got whacked based off of those. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

i wont to unblock and reflect my account on google page . but I don't know how its possible for me can you help me to do this 115.242.219.54 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If your account is blocked, you need to request unblock when logged in to your account, on your user talk page. Wikipedia has no interest in any Google page you have. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So I’m trying to improve wiki project Japan mostly the music side or just Asian music but I notice when going through the wp:japan list of low importance stubs to find some music articles to edit that their were a lot of 118th infantry regiment Japan and the such others and I think if we could come up with a good way to reduce the number of these articles dramatically and be of great help (although I assume adding a list of them if one doesn’t already exist may be worth while) should I like make a lot of them portals to their father branch such as say (just an example I don’t believe it’s how their system actually works) 118th infantry regiment redirecting to just say 9th infantry battalion? thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If the articles have references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topics, they should be kept. Too many articles is not a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Goldsoldier75. Cullen328 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you I was more asking about articles who have close to just 1 lead paragraph and then a very short history of also one paragraph and cite maybe 1 source Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

As I believe it is best to spend some time setting up a fast way to knock out like 50 or more Japan articles and likely even more from abroad instead of just slowing weeding through them but I don’t want to delete them because there is a fair chance someone might look them up at some point, So currently I believe using a portal to their father brigade or whatever it may be and then just adding a list of all those regiments may work well, Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Say take this one 118th Division (Imperial Japanese Army) This division lasted under a year and had no real conflicts or engagements. Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsoldier75, I suggest that you make your suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Provide links to your examples (e.g. "118th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)"). People reading that talk page are likely to be better qualified to comment than people reading this one (on average). -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay thank you, and do you think my idea for a fix’s is at all plausible. Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to judge, Goldsoldier75; and I lack the time to find out. But some advice. There's no obvious urgency. Therefore, use the next couple of weeks to prepare yourself. Not should I like make a lot of them portals to their father branch such as say (just an example I don’t believe it’s how their system actually works) 118th infantry regiment redirecting to just say 9th infantry battalion (in which I think "should I" means "I should"), but instead find out how relevant systems actually worked. If you think that 118th Division (Imperial Japanese Army) (to continue with your example), should instead be a redirect to some other article, then find out which article, and lucidly and concisely provide your reasoning for that being the best choice. Come to think of it, you could post your suggestion to either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Don't post it to both. However, you can use one project's talk page to alert readers there to the discussion that you've started on the other project's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I will follow this and make a plan for this “problem” and then I will submit it to wiki project military history. Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm making a cladogram for Nasidytes, taken from the describing paper. In the paper's cladogram, the Petralca + crown group Gaviiformes clade has the latter placed above the former, but most cladograms I've seen put crown-groups at the bottom in cases like this. Should I swap their places, or keep the paper's arrangement? Swapping them would not affect the actual relationships portrayed. Zach Varmitech (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Zach Varmitech, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds is the best place to ask your question.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Following the usual arrangement seems better to me. It also has the incidental advantage of helping avoid a "breach of copyright" claim by the papers' authors. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, how come you don’t really have that much of a good reputation when it comes to schooling and education, and research? From Maggie Kelsh. 2600:4040:278E:6000:BDCA:E056:4188:3D31 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@2600:4040:278E:6000:BDCA:E056:4188:3D31: Without hearing the specific criticism, it's hard to say. You can discuss this subject at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Maggie. That's a very interesting question, and it really merits a detailed essay of a reply (but I won't force that on you!). I suspect you may have a very out-of-date schoolteacher or lecturer who has unfortunately given you their ideas from maybe 10 or 15 years ago which they've not yet shaken off. So, I'm sorry if you've been given the wrong idea about our huge project.

In its early days, yes, Wikipedia was raw and nothing like as accurate as it is today. We now have innumerable policies required Reliable Sources to enable you or anyone to Verify what published sources say, and those sources include academic books and publications. We even have extra requirements for higher reference standards on articles on medical topics (see WP:MEDRS), and absolutely nothing contentious about living or recently deceased people can be put into articles without proper, accurate and reliable sources supporting those statements. (See WP:BLP for our policies on that).

Quite a few studies were carried out some years ago (including one from 2012) which have shown that the number of errors in Wikipedia's 6.2 million English pages were equal to and often fewer than those that found their way into formal encyclopaedias written just by a panel of experts. (see List of academic studies about Wikipedia).

Most vandalism here gets fixed very quickly, and troublesome editors or trolls are eventually blocked, though some clever and very rare hoaxes have indeed slipped through from time to time (see WP:HOAXLIST, but see also Piltdown Man!).

Wikipedia now works with schools, universities and museums and art galleries to mobilise content, and Wikipedia editors are even employed within those museums in many parts of the world (see WP:GLAM for more details). In one example I personally know of, researchers at the Sanger Laboratories in Cambridge University have even shared their finding on all protein structures in the human genome so that the wider research community in poorer countries can have free access to data that they might not otherwise be able to reach.

To be honest, I think that for the majority of people, Wikipedia really has become their 'go to' place to get information or to find further detailed references to delve deeper into subjects. For many people, students included, Wikipedia has become the start of their information journey on most important topics. But, because all our pages are user-generated, and simply summarise other properly published sources, we never assert that Wikipedia should be relied upon as the basis of doing writing coursework or essays. For this reason, Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a great starting place for research but not always a great ending place. So always use the 'References' list at the bottom of every article to do your own research. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools and maybe even Wikipedia:School and university projects for our formal advice on that.

Nowadays, even Google places Wikipedia content in its Knowledge Boxes in most search results, so there are even more 'eyes on' articles, and correction of mistakes, and filling-in of missing content than ever before. We have formal education programmes in place and many universities teach using Wikipedia and set editing challenges in collaboration with trained staff. Wikipedia itself is even the subject of many academic researchers. See Wikipedia:Research, Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Statistics for further information which I hope may help dispel your misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and any unfortunate view you might have been given.

Of course, it would be lovely to hear from you why you feel the way you do, or any examples you have found of errors here. We know we still have gaps and mistakes, but all of us here are committed in our own way to making this encyclopedia even better. I hope you might consider joining us in that, so if you need help, just ask. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you perhaps referring to teachers not allowing citation to Wikipedia articles in research papers? You really shouldn't be citing ANY encyclopedia in most research papers, not just Wikipedia. What you should be using Wikipedia for is to identify what source Wikipedia uses for a statement and then find that original source and use it in your paper. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Further information on how and when school children can cite Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! In the article of Hospitality Club I've run into an issue that I'd like to discuss and hope it is the right place here:

1. Sometimes companies, software products, etc. just run out of business. If they got unimportant over the time, there might be no media coverage anymore. Which means that there is no valid source we can use for mentioning that this product/club/company is not active anymore. The English Wikipedia seems to be very strict on that, but shouldn't we discuss if there is a better way how to deal with these things instead of having an article that sounds like everything still is in business?
2. I already tried 3O and RfC to discuss the matter in the mentioned article. The whole process of discussing and solving these issues is rather complicated and not welcoming at all. Also you run into experienced users who seem to know the rules by heart but are not willing to show a collaborative behaviour (even if they were told already to do so on their talk page). I'm not a native English speaker, so I just sporadically do minor edits here where things do not get too complicated. Usually I do a lot more work in the Wikipedia in my language. Still I was surprised that the English Wikipedia feels to be so much more stubborn and unwelcoming. Just wanted to mention that this does not seem to be the attitude you'll get new editors to stay involved.

There were the two points I'd like to mention after that experiece. Not an important article though, but maybe it's possible to find better ways how to deal with certain things. - Flexman (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

On your first point, a WP:ABOUTSELF source, if available, could work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. If I understand, you mean things the company published about themselves? Well unfortuntately their last statment was promising some things followed by years of inactivity. They even didn't do a "we are closing" statement. Flexman (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Then per WP:OR etc, there's not much to do, I think. I'm unaware of any WP:RS that keeps public records on former companies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe one should discuss the rules. But where? Flexman (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Flexman, the policy in question is WP:Verifiability. Attempting to change that policy in order to allow original research would be a monumental task - if it's something you want to attempt, the place to start such a discussion would be: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I wouldn't want to allow original research. Rules also make sense, but maybe there are other ways to find a solution. It's more the question which kind of sources obvious things need, or if an uptime monitor could be a source there, etc. Like someone mentioned in the discussion, we don't need to list sources to know that the Pope is Catholic or that the sky is blue. So there is not just one valid interpretation of WP:OR. In this case the RfC was rather useless, since also known things were discussed. Maybe it helps more if you can do a yes or no vote in this case. Flexman (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear all, I recently created an article about a development economist, Sam Ankrah and submitted but unfortunately it was rejected as it was not fit for wiki as at then. I have reshaped it and submitted for further review with link attached (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sam_Ankrah). Someone kindly assist to review it and see if its ok to feature on wikipedia now. Will appreciate any further suggestions to make it better. Thanks in advance Pagefour (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI - Draft:Sam Ankrah was Declined, not Rejected (more severe). You have added content and resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, non-notable awards and speaking at a conference do not establish notability. WP:TOOSOON may apply here. David notMD (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback but what do you suggest I do to make it acceptable? Pagefour (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Pagefour I appears you have gathered all media mentions of Ankrah, and in my opinion, none of that establishes notability. I recommend deleting the draft by putting db-author at the top inside of double curly brackets {{ }} and coming back to the topic in a few years. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

In List of presidents of departmental councils (France), the main table is in the Alternating rows table template, which makes it a bit difficult to edit for regular users. Like I wanted to add numbers 67 and 68 (not in the list), merge them, and add European Collectivity of Alsace instead. But I don't know how to merge in source editing. Any solutions?

One solution can be temporarily replacing the "{{alternating rows table|class=wikitable sortable}}|-" at the start of the template with "{| class="wikitable"|-" for the duration of editing, then after editing replacing it back with the original thing. But that might be a little inconvenient and this solution can't be suggested everytime.

(Sorry I don't know how to type wikicode in that white highlight, I think {{Code}}) Excellenc1 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The development of indentation-based techniques to obtain stress-strain curves (for metals) is an important area, which has been the subject of extensive work over the past couple of decades. The origins lie in hardness testing, which dates back over a century. However, hardness numbers are only semi-quantitative indicators of the resistance to plastic deformation and cannot be used for quantitative purposes. Indentation plastometry is a term now used to describe the obtaining of stress-strain curves from indentation data. This concept is part of an overall activity in which nanoindentation - ie instrumented, very fine scale indentation - forms a part. However, such fine scale indentation, while useful for obtaining information about local regions, cannot be used to obtain the bulk (macroscopic) properties. It is now clear that relatively large volumes must be deformed, although they can still be small enough to allow mapping over the surface of samples and the procedure is still much easier and more convenient than conventional (tensile) testing. There are also several different ways in which the stress-strain curve can be obtained from experimental indentation outcomes. In view of the benefits that will follow from development and full optimisation of a methodology of this type, it would be timely to have an article summarising the main points that are relevant to such procedures. I'd appreciate hearing whether it would be worthwhile for me to draft out a first stab at this. I'd envisage something relatively short, although there are certainly many references that could be cited. BillClyne (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BillClyne! Please read through the essays and policies WP:Five pillars and WP:Verifiability to give yourself an idea of what Wikipedia needs in the way of WP:Reliable sources on which articles need to be based. (I expect soon someone will add a welcoming message with various other useful links to your Talk page, whose link in your signature will then turn blue.) You might also want to read Help:Your first article, not necessarily because you are about to start one yourself, but to give you an idea of the article-writing process.

Once you grasp the outlines of what is required, come back here and give links to what you consider to be the three (or a few more, but not a dozen) best Reliable sources that the proposed article could be based on, and responders here will look at them and tell you what they think. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.177 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello BillClyne. I see that you've been given some general advice about article creation. Given the specialist nature of your suggestion, you might be best to ask editors experienced in Engineering and Materials. You could post at one of the Project Talk Pages, namely WT:WikiProject_Engineering and/or WT:WikiProject_Materials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I appreciate that I need to become familiar with various aspects of the Wiki system before I can either edit or compose articles. I will try to do this, although it might take me a little while. In fact, I have made one attempt at editing (adding a small amount of text to an existing article), but without including references. I've been contacted about this and I'm now going to try this again, with the references included - it's simply a question of working out exactly how they need to be added. I do appreciate that there is a lot of helpful information available online. Once I've sorted this out, I'll think about the new article idea. I appreciate that some prior feedback from editors with experience in Materials Science would be helpful and I'll aim to post something as you suggest. Many thanks for your help and advice. BillClyne (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

JohnBravely1991 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia, JohnBravely1991? Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Undefined Parameters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@JohnBravely1991: Please specify a specific thing you're trying to do at a specific page and specific problem you're encountering. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Undefined Parameters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you a bot? Polyamorph (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

ooooh...five minute intervals. Interesting. valereee (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Undefined Paramters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

So yes on the five minute intervals, but this one's got a typo. Someone block this joker. valereee (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I want to add an article Elisabeth of Hesse-Marburg, but this article name already is in use as a redirect to the article about her husband John V, Count of Nassau-Siegen.
Is it allowed to simply delete the redirect? Or should someone delete the page first before I can add the article? Thanks in advance for your reply. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Roelof Hendrickx, thanks for posting a message at the Teahouse. We had an article on the Elisabeth of Hesse-Marburg. In 2018, Aciram redirected it to what it currently is targeted to. Perhaps a discussion about should the article be re-created now? What sources do you have about the subject? Believe most of the concern previously was a lack of verifiable information. Justiyaya 17:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Justiyaya, thanks for your reply. I understand the concern about verifiable information. For the article I wrote about her, I have used the same sources I have used to re-write the article about her husband. And of course, I have used references in the article. I hope this helps. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Roelof Hendrickx: this is an old revision of the article. As you can see it is unsourced and provides no personal relevance. Per WP:NOTINHERITED subjects need to have independent notability. If you can demonstrate they are independently notable of their husband, then by all means be WP:BOLD and replace the redirect with your article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Polyamorph, thanks for your reply. That old version of the article is indeed unsourced and provides no personal relevance. I think the article I wrote, does provide personal relevance, so I will be bold and replace the redirect. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Roelof Hendrickx Can you post some sources you have here for us to determine notability? Starting a draft then requesting a move to the article space later is also an option if you want to do that instead. Justiyaya 13:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just have been so bold to replace the redirect. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks great. Polyamorph (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

So I’m working on a massive addition to the Michiya haruhata page as recently discovered the oricon jp and i am going make a list of all his charting albums and songs firstly should I do this or is this bad should I just listed how many charting singles and albums he has along with his highest and longest charting song and album which is better? and two if I go for the first option is there any effective to shorten the amount of references should I just reference to the home page for him and then people can just find the song or album they want to check because I believe it may take upwards of 25 references which feels like a lot. As all ways Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsoldier75, if an assertion is worth adding, then a link to the specific source for that assertion is worth adding. And of course the reference should not be merely a "bare URL". You need author(s) (if specified), page title, website title, year/date of publication, date of access..... Articles that have had "massive additions" can easily have, and usually should have, hundreds of references. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsoldier75, Michiya Haruhata tells us for example: He is a Member of the Fender signature artist club and was added as the first Asian guitarist member, in fact he is one of few guitarists to receive multiple fender signature guitars of which he actually has three different signature guitars. Perhaps I'm unusual (others here may wish to chime in), but I have only the vaguest understanding of what that means. Before thinking of making any "massive addition", perhaps polish what's already there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so I’ll go through my manual citations and try to make them better, and I did think while writing that part out that it was likely to informal and not clear enough or rather simple enough for non guitarists which I guess is kinda of the point of wiki, thanks for your input I will spend some time before I make my large addition to polish up the page and maybe read some stuff on formal bibliography writing (any thing you can recommend)?

Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Also if I may be so bold can you please explain to me roughly what the problem with bare url citations is.

Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsoldier75, thank you for asking. Please see Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts and the pages to which it links, and Wikipedia:Bare URLs. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

There are good semi-automatic tools for adding citations/references, but often you have to add some info manually. See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Goldsoldier75. Reliable sources are required to be published and accessible, but they're not required to be available online. Let's suppose someone wanted to cite a reliable source which was not available online. How would they do such a thing? If it was a book, for example, they might follow the guidance given in WP:CITEHOW and add as much information as they could about the book to make it easier for others to find it if they wanted to take a closer look at it. The same can be said about a WP:Bare URLs. If the link works, then clicking on it will take the reader to the source; in lots of cases, however, links end up being broken in some way or even "dying" which means clicking on them no longer works as intended. For such reasons, it's considered quite helpful and really good practice to provide as much information about the source as possible even when it's still available online because this makes it easier for others to track it down if for some reason the same source should subsequently become no longer available. It might be accessible at some other location online or in some offline way that makes assessing it still possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm relatively new at editing and have a question about best practices for making a simple correction to an image. The Nika riots page has a photo from Wikimedia Commons of the "Hippodrome of Constantinople" in Istanbul. When I was looking at details of the image, I discovered that the image was flipped (left/right) when I noticed that writing on a sign in the background was backwards.

I have downloaded the image and flipped it to the correct orientation. As far as I can tell there are two possible ways to fix this: 1) upload the corrected photo (with proper attribution to the original creator) to the Wikipedia Nika riots page or 2) upload the the corrected photo to a new Wikimedia Commons page (with proper attribution to the original creator) and then link to that photo.

Which of these options would be best practice or is there a different way to fix this?

Thanks!

Hermit Pole (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but if it has the wrong orientation, I think you can hit "request rotation" on the file description page to request a rotation, if that's what you want. Otherwise, press 'upload a new version of this file', which preserves the attribution of previous versions. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 20:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The "request rotation" option only does rotations, not reflections.

I would upload the unflipped image over the current one. That has the advantage that all pages using the image will automatically get the correct version. The wrongly flipped image will be preserved in the image history. I see no benefit in preserving it as a separate image at Commons. Maproom (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hermit Pole: The image is not flipped. It looks like your "sign" is the back of a partially transparent banner. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Google Street View confirming the image is right. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow - you're right! Sorry I didn't check this more carefully. Thank you all for your help. Good learning experience. I'll just leave it alone. Hermit Pole (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The title says it all 184.58.146.65 (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not. What gave you the template? Which template? In what sense did it give it to you, despite denying you access to it? Anyway, before starting a draft on a female baker (if that's what you hope to do), you'd be wise to get experience improving existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible you were logged in at the time? If you made any edits while logged in earlier, log back in and click "Contributions" (upper right on desktop version of website) and you'll see every change you published. That might help you retrace your steps. -- asilvering (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

We only have specific templates for certain professions. So Template:Infobox person would suffice for most people - bakers included. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

We have Template:Infobox culinary career and Template:Infobox chef but I don't know whether they are used for bakers. If you mean a woman named Baker then Baker (surname) has many. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that when you say "template", you don't mean what Wikipedia calls a Template, but I'm not sure. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine I think they must mean something like how WP:NOVELS has [12]. But if there's something like that for biographies, I don't know what it is. The closest I can think of is WP:MOSBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

i have been having issues with editing. Someone please revert my edit on Priah Nicole Ferguson page please. Recently I began seeing unwanted spacious edits I do not know the cause. Uricdivine (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Uricdivine  Done I've reverted all your edits to that page. I was unclear if you means all of them, or just your very last one. i did them all, but you can find them all at the View History tab and add or remove any content again quite easily. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thank you, but I meant the very last one. Am a mobile editor is view history tan where I can remove and add content available?. Cheers Uricdivine (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Uricdivine I've restored your last but one version. Polyamorph (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Polyamorph Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

So I was working on the Virgin Orbit article and had several contributions in several sections, updating the article to today's knowledge. I was generally curious on whether it is a better idea to do smaller edits focused on one section each, or a general overall edit to multiple sections. I went with smaller edits because in case of error I assumed it would be easier to revert, but for future reference which should I choose? Is there an editing policy I overlooked?

(These edits are from a few days ago) Legojrp (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Legojrp, section by section generally better so that if there is something that another editor takes issue with, they can revert (and then discuss) the specific section rather than being heavy-handed and reverting the one large edit. Slywriter (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Legojrp, I agree completely with Slywriter's comment. Smaller, more discrete edits allow other editors to evaluate the appropriateness of each change, instead of trying to evaluate a big bucket of changes. This approach is not required by policy, but I consider it a "best practice" that facilitates collaboration and reduces disputes among editors. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Good Evening!

I am a long time user of Wikipedia, and have edited a few articles etc over the years. I do have one question though. When I went to add the name of the new Mister Supranational 2022, Luis Daniel Gálvez of Cuba, the page said that it was semi protected. I looked up what that meant and, as far as I can see, you have to edit 10 or more articles nd have had an account for at least 4 days. I’ve been on Wikipedia for a fair number of years, so not sure why I dont’t need the requirements in order to be allowed to edit a semi protected page. Thank you in advance for any clarity you can offer. Heidi bradshaw (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Heidi bradshaw: When I edit protected pages, I see editnotices that they're protected all the time. That's normal. You should be able to type in the edit box if you are autoconfirmed and the page is semi protected. You can see your user groups here to confirm that you are in the group 'autoconfirmed users'. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I’ve gone back and see I can edit and publish. It just caught me off guard with that ‘warning’ at the top. Have a good night! Heidi bradshaw (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Heidi bradshaw: Welcome to the Teahouse. Autoconfirmed users (defined as users who have made 10 edits and have had their accounts for at least 4 days) can edit semiprotected articles without trouble. I don't think edit notices can be configured to only show for affected users, and sometimes editors want to know when and why protection was given. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I strongly disagree over categories re-added by @Bedivere on Henrietta Müller. Henrietta Müller was born in Valparaiso in an English-German Family of expats. The family settled back in England and she went to college at Girton, then spent her entire life in England as did her family. There is no evidence that as an adult, she kept any links of any sort with Chile, no references, no sources, etc. I consider that she cannot be "categorized" as, I quote, "Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent". Any opinions ? (English is not my native language) Best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this talk should be continued where it is due: at the article's talk page. Having said that, we have no certainty and no possible answer to your consideration ("There is no evidence that as an adult, she kept any links of any sort with Chile, no references, no sources, etc."). I just pointed out a fact: the Constitution of 1833 considers her a Chilean (born in Chile, jus soli applies), and it is unlikely she ever renounced to it. Bedivere (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"One of these was Miss F. Henrietta Muller, a Chilean-British woman's rights activist and theosophist, then living in London.", "Clara Colby: The International Suffragist"

Guru to the World: The Life and Legacy of Vivekananda, by Ruth Harris: "Henrietta Müller - of Chilean German origin, but active in London [...]"

Bikes and Bloomers: Victorian Women Inventors and their Extraordinary Cycle Wear, "The Müller family left Chile when Henrietta was nine, and travelled to Boston, and then onto London, where they lived for two years. They moved back to Chile briefly before returning to London where they then stayed".

That's some great sources proving both she was a Chilean and that she lived considerable time in that country (more than a decade for sure - nine years then some brief stay of two years). Bedivere (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pierrette13. This is a matter that should be discussed at Talk:Henrietta Müller and I do not think that it is likely that you will find a Teahouse host willing to express a strong opinion about this. I am curious, though, why you sostrongly disagree about this relatively innocuous categorization of a woman born in Chile who died in 1906? Why are you so passionate about the categorization of a woman who died 116 years ago? Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328 Thank you for your answer, I translate pages from WP:en to WP:fr and especially suffragists, University women pages, etc. In my opinion, a Chilean Suffragist is a suffragist in Chile, not a suffragist in England there is no relevance with this category. I translated Henriette Muller, her sister Eva McLaren. I'm not too familiar with English WP help and so I thought I could find some help over here (I used Tea House once before), I 'll go somewhere else for relevant opinions ("she lived some times from 0 to 10 in Chile" doesn't have any sense for a statement abour "Chilean Suffragist" or "Chilean expat in England"! Best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

can you pls tell me that how can I make a wikipedia profile for me. Thank you in advance Nitin Happy (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Happy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editor wholly unconnnected with the topic. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable person. It is not absolutely forbidden to attempt to write an article about one's self, but it is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. It is discouraged in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and also because it is hard for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write summarizing what others choose on their own to say about them. We usually recommend that new editors first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest them before attempting to write any article, let alone one about themselves. However, if you wish to attempt to do so now, please first gather independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about you(not interviews with you or press releases/announcements or brief mentions), read Your First Article, then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor.

Either way, you may also want to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I Make an Article for myself with describing about myself Nitin Happy (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Happy I've answered this question above. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves, it is for summarizing what others say about a person. If you have follow up questions, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Your attempt to create a draft about yourself was nominated for speedy deletion, and then deleted by an Administrator. The reason given was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-promotional, absolutely unviable draft." Not being an Administrator, I cannot see the draft, but as explained above, Wikipedia has referenced biographical articles about famous people. Unless people with no connection to you are writing about you and your acomplishements - not going to happen. The same thing will happen if you use your User page to compose a self-profile. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Earlier this year I spent some time editing an entry. I read up on how to articles, but in the end most of my edits were deleted. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's terminology, so I could not address the issues. It is obvious that I need some help with this. Would any of the host like to come and save the day?

Thanks in advance,

Peter PetrusHenricus (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@PetrusHenricus: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reverting revision was concerned that your contribution was unsourced. Please read Easy referencing for beginners to learn how to cite, which is essential to all articles on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi PetrusHenricus. (Edit conflict) I assume you are referring to your addition to Nana Araba Apt, which was (see the edit history) WP:REVERTed with the WP:EDITSUMMARY "WP:UNDUE, the addition is good but almost none of it is actually sourced." Although the subject of that article is deceased, we need additions to her biography to be correctly sourced (see WP:BLP for related requirements). So it looks to me that you should read about our basic guide for adding inline sources. After reading these links, see if you can include the source details you are using. Note that Wikipedia does not allow additions based on what you may know personally, perhaps because you were a colleague or student of this educator. We call this original research. Note also that Wikipedia is not a place to create a WP:MEMORIAL for someone. Do come back here if you need further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

i am becoming addicted to wikipedia. now i am wikipediaholic. how to get rid of this ? help me to be productive Baruahranuj 17:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Read thru the archives of WP:AN/I and WP:A/R/E. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baruah ranuj In all seriousness, the solution is to log out of your account and get off the computer for at least a few days. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What recourse do I have for someone who is misattributing statements in a talk page discussion to me, deliberately trolling me and personally attacking me by claiming I'm incompetent and need mentorship? OrgoneBox (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OrgoneBox. You could file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but please be aware that your own behavior will come under scrutiny as well. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a wikipedia a/c but I created it a long time ago and I haven't kept track of my password. I may have used a defunct e-mail address. There doesn't seem to be any way to recover access in this instance. 121.200.5.36 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don't remember your password, and can't access the email, then the account is lost since there is no way to get the password back. You will need to create a new account. You can add a note on your new user page that you previously edited under the old account name. RudolfRed (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello lovely people,

I just need your help and expertise to build my bio page on Wikipedia, as I feel almost lost trying to use the template and the website.

I have a published draft already, containing plain text.

Any advice or suggestion is welcomed. Husseinhajj (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Husseinhajj You aren't going to find legitimate help to build your own biography here. It's that much of a bad idea. You might find someone who wants your money and will promise you an article, but that's a scam. Here's where you can start instead of trying to create articles. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Husseinhajj. You may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. An encyclopedia article about you won't belong to you, and anyone can edit it, if they can find a good reliable published source for what they write. Perhaps the time will come when something happens that you'd rather not have the world know about. If the incident makes the local newspaper, then it's published in a reliable source, can end up in your "bio page," and you can't delete that part, for you aren't to be editing an article about yourself. You may want to write about yourself on social media, or perhaps start your own website. That way you can write almost anything you'd like about yourself, and you'd be free to update your biography as you see fit.

Best wishes on finding a better platform to publish a biography about yourself. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This accident was blamed on the crew flying off course, but I read a book decades ago on the flight that made the case that, not only did the US have a spyplane flying near the flight over Soviet airspace as reported, but the author contended that flight was also monitoring the flight, AND in addition, the US also had a space shuttle overflying the area at the same time, allegedly also monitoring this overflight. Perhaps not so surprisingly then, US President Reagan confronted the Soviets within a couple of months after the incident claiming the US had hard evidence that the Krasnoyarsk radar station (allegedly a significant radar site in the area that could be used for detecting this overflight), was in fact used as part of the Soviet strategic air defence system and not for scientific(?) purposes as originally claimed, making it illegal in the context of existing strategic agreements with the US at the time. The allegation was that the US had promoted this overflight in an effort to make that case. I wasn't sure if anyone else was familiar with the book, or agreed these other statements, if verified, would be worth including in a revision or appended statement to that episode, possibly after the the producers investigated? 2604:3D09:C784:5600:C019:150C:9E19:A344 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of the page is to summarize the information displayed in the show. Information like you described regarding the incident would usually have a place on the page for the incident, however the book you've described doesn't seem to be a credible source. For instance, I don't see anything indicating the space shuttle was ever, in theory or in reality, capable of terrestrial reconnaissance, and the payload of the shuttle up at the time was not capable of reconnaissance either. WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with expediting article submitted for AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_Veluz. Please let me know how to proceed Dvpo2 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dvpo2: As it says at the top, there are a large number of drafts waiting for review. Be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dvpo2. The second sentence of your draft is unreferenced name dropping. That will be a red flag for reviewers. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The AfC backlog is not a queue, so Draft:Omar Veluz could be reviewed in days, weeks, or sadly, months. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Good evening. I am asking a question regarding the page of Andy Slater. There was no content within the talk page of the NPOV dispute and I went ahead and cleaned the page up to take away the multiple sub-headers. What else needs to be done? I went to delete the messages after the cleanup and it got reverted to an older version without the cleanup. Thanks for any help as I am trying to handle this the proper way. BlueMoon87 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoon87: Looking at the history of the article, I see that the {{npov}} tag was added by Treybien2 and the {{Cleanup rewrite}} tag was added by Curbon7. I suggest you post your question on Talk:Andy Slater and ask these users to join the conversation. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Your question now moot, as an editor has since removed 90% of the article. David notMD (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I help to save my account. I think will not be blocked to editing. I haved a question: The removed has been restored, what should I do now? There are no current to protect in Cardei012597 because the removed has been fixed. I want to try another way and make sure not vandalism to get blocked for me, no matters how you can haved an account. I want to continue Wikipedia and haved an road to victory. Chris troutman let me don’t let vandalism that negatively for the experience for other edits. Anyway, thanks to the help me fixed and make sure to continue before blocked for users in all times. Welcomed. 2402:800:63A5:D160:31B6:B20B:267A:99A9 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This is word salad, likely caused by automated translation. Could you post this in your native language? A translation by a person will make more sense and be more accurate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A) Your entry here is from an IP address. If you have an account, ask again after logging in, so that a Teahouse host can look at your past edits. B) Leave Cardei12597's Talk page alone. You deleted content (none of your business) and it was restored by Chris troutman. C) So far, your edits as the IP address 2402 would not lead to you being warned about being blocked, but again, have you been threatened with being blocked on a logged in account? D) I agree that your query was not proper English. Please compose with more care. David notMD (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't seem to refill the links on Draft:Présence protestante does anyone else know how to do them? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If Refill does not work, then the remaining URLs will need to be converted to ref format manually. David notMD (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Same applies to Daisy de Galard, 36 chandelles and to C'est arrivé à 36 chandelles. And the info box on the last needs to be fixed. David notMD (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

can i check how much time I used in wikipedia editing in a period of time? Baruahranuj 06:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baruah ranuj, [13] may have some of what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)